SUBHASH MADHAV KALE Vs. KAMALAKAR GAJANAN GHEVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition along with the companion matter, being Writ Petition No. 5964 of 1986, was heard on the 7th July, 1994 since both the petitions were tagged on together. The reason seems to be that the landlords in both the premises are common, though the tenant-petitioner is different. Moreover, the facts of both the petitions are more or less identical. The matter was adjourned on the last occasion in order to enable Shri Murthy and Shri Pradhan to prepare the synopsis and the statement of the dates of payment of rent, as was done in Writ Petition No. 5964 of 1986. The synopsis alongwith the statement of dates of payment of rent, which is now produced before me, is taken on record and marked "x" for identification. It must be stated in fairness to Shri Pradhan that he did not dispute the correctness of the said synopsis and the statement of the dates of payment of rent.

(2.) THIS is a petition filed by the original defendant/tenant against the judgments and decrees passed by the two courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents-landlords on the ground that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of more than 6 months and assuming that his case fell under the un-amended provisions of Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (for short, the Bombay Rent Act), the tenant had not "regularly" paid or tendered in Court the rent that had fallen due during the pendency of the proceedings.

(3.) HAVING heard Shri Murthy and Shri Pradhan, a few facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated as under. The premises are Room No. 3 in a chawl known as Tarabai Nivas, Municipal Lane No. 55, House, No. 128, Kalyan. The premises were let out to the petitioner with effect from 1st August, 1966 at a contractual rent of Rs. 43/ -. It appears that the petitioner had given a loan of Rs. 3,225/- to the respondents mother on condition that Rs. 20 per month was to be adjusted towards the repayment of the loan and the balance of Rs. 23/- was to be paid by the petitioner. This seems to be the devise common in both the petitions. The landlady had obviously obtained some money from each of the tenants under the garb that it was a loan. The date of advance of the loan is 17th July, 1966. On the 16th September, 1966 an agreement was executed between the parties under which it was agreed that Rs. 20/- per month would be adjusted towards repayment of loan of Rs. 3,225/ -. This agreement is at Exh. 18. It appears that the loan amount was adjusted by December, 1979. There is some dispute about the dates on which the rent was paid and/or tendered immediately thereafter. This is understandable because of some confusion relating to the exact mode of payment after the loan of Rs. 3,225 was adjusted.