HARIDAS KUMANDAS VED Vs. TRIMBAK SHAMRAO JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Application has been filed by Applicant Haridas Ved (original Plaintiff - landlord, hereafter referred as "Plaintiff") against Respondent Trimbak Jadhav (original Defendant - tenant, hereafter referred as "Defendant"). The Revision has been filed against Judgment dated 22nd March 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2003 passed by District Judge -2, Jalgaon. By the impugned Judgment the Appellate Court set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 129 of 1999 dated 4th January 2003 and dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff.

(2.) THE Plaintiff had brought the Regular Civil Suit No. 129 of 1999 on the grounds that: (1) Defendant was defaulter in payment of rent, (2) Plaintiff wants possession of the suit premises for bona fide requirement and (3) Non user of the suit premises by the Defendant.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for the Applicant - original Plaintiff submitted that there were arrears of rent from 1st April 1998 regarding which notice Exhibit 35 dated 7th September 1998 had been issued. According to the counsel, the same was served on 11th September 1998. He submitted that Defendant sent money order dated 9th October 1998 vide Exhibit 68 and the trial Court held that there was compliance of Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. However, the trial Court further considered that during pendency of the suit the rent had not been regularly deposited, as can be seen from Para 17 of the Judgment of the trial Court and thus the trial Court rightly concluded that Defendant was not regular in depositing the amount in Court and thus had persistently defaulted during pendency of the suit and the Court had no discretion but to hold him as a defaulter. Learned counsel for Applicant relied on the case of Analini B. Shah Vs. Bapalal Mohanlal Shah, reported in A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court Page 954, the case of Praveshchandra Ramprakash Sahani (Dr.) Vs. Abdul Ajij Dayabhai and others, reported in 2002(2) Bom. C.R. Page No. 316 and the case of Suman Shankar Unde Vs. Shamsunder Lekhraj Khatri, reported in 2005(6) Bom.C.R. Page 899 to claim that the Defendant was defaulter. According to the learned counsel, the first Appellate Court wrongly upset the Judgment.