RAMABHAI BALKRISHNA BUCHADE Vs. RADHABAI MADHAVRAO KHODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the concurrent findings given by the Courts below, thereby the respondent's suit for eviction on the ground of default, as contemplated under Bombay rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act) has been decreed.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of one room on ground floor, in Municipal House no. 866, Gora Ram Galli, Nasik, since more than 25 years at the rate of Rs. 14. 04 per month inclusive of education cess at the rate of rs. 1. 04. As there was dispute between the respondents-landlords, about the ownership of the suit premises and as the Municipal Council served a demand notice for recovery of taxes upon the petitioner being a occupier, he deposited the part of the amount from 10-06-1976 to 11-08-1982 without any specific intimation to the respondents-landlords, through the Exhs. 23 to 27 and 30, dated 16-07-1979, 07-12-1982.12-02-1981, 08-12-1981 and also 10-06-1982. The landlords therefore, by demand notice in question dated 01-12-1982, exh. 18 demanded the arrears of rent plus education cess from the period from 01-08-1978 to 31-12-1982, for 52 months. The said notice was duly served on 21st December, 1982. There is no dispute about the receipt of the notice. There was no reply filed to the said notice. There was no objection or dispute raised on any count. There was no application filed for fixation of arrears of rent within one month, as contemplated under section 12 (3) (a) of the bombay Rent Act. Thus within the statutory period of 30 days, the petitioner-tenant has admittedly not complied with the said provisions.

(3.) By the written statement, the petitioner tenant stated as under; "the defendant is in arrears of rent from december, 1981. He is ready to deposit the arrears or rent upto December, 1983 to the tune of Rs. 351/- in the Court. " his defence, therefore, also nowhere supports for grant of protection to the petitioner, merely, because the tenant has expressed his readiness and willingness in the written statement for the first time.