ARUN ANANT TAVKAR Vs. SUHAS YESHWANT NARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby, sought to challenge a judgment and order passed in Appeal No. 94 of 1992 by small Cause Court, Bandra Branch, dated 12th october, 1993, whereby, the appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the respondent-landlord and the judgment and order dated 6th april, 1992, passed by the Small Cause Court (Trial Court) was set aside and granted the decree in favour of the respondent on the ground of default, as contemplated under section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act). Therefore, the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of Flat no. 3, first floor, "suyesh", Phirozshaw Mehta road, Vile Parle (East) , Bombay. There was some dispute going on between the parties in reference to the parking of the car in the compound of the building. By the notice dated 14-06-1985, the respondent landlord demanded the increase in rent, and the same was received by the respondent on 5th July, 1985. The petitioner alleged to have sent rent through the money order on 19-06-1985, for the period of January and February, 1985. The said money order was redirected by the respondent to Assam in the month of July, 1985. The said money order was not accepted and therefore, returned back in the month of august, 1985.

(3.) The respondent thereafter, issued demand notice for the arrears of rent of six months, for the period from 01-01-1985 to 30-06-1985 The said demand notice was duly served and acknowledged by the petitioner on 5th July. 1985. The petitioner, however, not complied with the said notice, and not objected or filed any application for fixation of standard rent. That resulted into filing of a suit R. A. E. and R. Suit No. 1875/5658 of 1984 in the trial court. The petitioner-tenant basically, resisted the said suit on the foundation of non receipt of the demand notice dated 3rd July, 1985. When the envelope was opened by the petitioner-tenant, it was not contained letter dated 3rd July, 1985 but it was letter dated 14th july, 1995 Therefore, the respondent-landlord, as alleged, played fraud by sending such letter under the guise of demand notice dated 3rd July, 1985. The reference was also made about the refusal of the money order. In this background the petitioner sought to contend that there was no question of complying with the demand notice. The parties led evidence. The petitioner-tenant examined himself. The respondent led evidence through his Wife and the Constituted Attorney (C. A. ). The trial court after considering the rival contentions raised by the parties, dismissed the suit on 06-04-1992. The respondent-landlord preferred the appeal. On the same pleading and evidence placed on the record, the appellate Court reversed the said findings and allowed the appeal and granted the decree.