SD UMAR SD AHMED Vs. DEDAMIYA HUSENBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to dispose of all these special civil applications preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the original tenant by a common judgment. The few facts material for their disposal, stated briefly,

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Dadamiya and other co-sharers brought three different suits in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, on 24-4-1968 against the present petitioner, a tenant, on three different premises forming part of the same property situate at Ahmednagar. Possession was claimed on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement, nuisance and default. The learned trial Judge rejected the claim for possession but made decrees for the arrears of rent claimed in the three respective suits. Against these decrees the landlord went in appeal to the District Court and the appeals were respectively numbered as 179, 181 and 184 of 1971. The learned District Judge, while maintaining the finding on the question of standard rent debated before the lower Court and the order for the arrears of rent, allowed the appeals and decreed possession in favour of the landlord, by his order dated 10-9-1971.

(3.) Before these three suits were instituted by the landlord for possession and arrears of rent, the tenant-petitioner had already preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 1966 on 7th November. 1966, for fixation of standard rent. On 2nd March, 1967, he moved the Court for fixation of interim rent and the lower Court by its order of even date fixed the interim rent for the three different premises at Rs. 4/- 4/-, and 5/- respectively, as against the agreed rent of Rs. 10/-, 8/- and 10/-. This proceeding was heard as a companion proceeding to the three suits and evidence was recorded in the regular sits. The learned trial Judge concluded that the agreed rent would be the standard rent. This was the order made in Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 1966 also. Against this order the tenant preferred Civil Revision Application No. 6 of 1969. The learned District Judge, on confirming the findings of the lower Court on the issue of standard rent, rejected the same. Against the decision in Civil Revision Application No. 6 of 1969. Special Civil Appln. No. 2792 of 1971 is filed. Thus it would be apparent that the tenant is impugning the order made by the learned District Judge in the application for fixation of standard rent and the three decrees obtained by the landlord in the different suits referred to above.