MAROTI MAHADU BHARADE Vs. MARTAND RAMBHAU HOLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioners seek to quash the orders dated 29-6-1995 in Regular Civil Suit No. 416 of 1980 passed by the learned iind Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner and the order dated 18- 12-1989, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 385 of 1985 passed by the learned IIIrd additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, confirming the decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that : the petitioners are the tenants of suit shop consisting of two khans out of house bearing Municipal House No. 804 belonging to the respondents. The tenancy is a monthly tenancy. Initially the rent was Rs. 10 but was then increased to Rs. 20/- per month. The petitioners were in arrears of rent from 1-1-1979. Besides, the respondents required the suit premises for their personal occupation for running a oricery shop and therefore, they served the petitioners with a notice dated 21-6-1980 calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent and claimed possession of the suit premises on the ground of default and bona fide requirement. The petitioners failed to comply with the notice, therefore, the respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 416 of 1980 in the Court of learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner, for possession of the property. The petitioners contested the claim adopting a defence that initially the rent was Rs. 10 per month and was not Rs. 20/- at any time. The petitioners, therefore, challenged the validity of the notice in respect of the ground of default in payment of rent. Claim regarding bona fide requirement of the respondents was controverted by pointing out that half portion of the suit house was sold by the respondents, therefore, their requirement is not bona fide.

(3.) At the trial, learned Civil Judge recorded a finding that the petitioners are wilful defaulters but negatived claim for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement. In conformity of these findings, the suit was decreed on the ground of the default in payment of rent under section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (as it stood prior to the amendment) (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act").