SIDHAPPA ATNURE Vs. SIDRAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenants petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the District Judge, Sholapur, allowing the plaintiffs appeal and decreeing the plaintiffs claim for possession of the suit property. The petitioner is a tenant of a block of two rooms on the ground floor of House No. 13/2, Budhwar Peth, Sholapur, of which the respondent No. 1 is a landlord. According to the plaintiff-landlord, the respondent No. 2 was originally the tenant and the petitioner was licensee of respondent No. 2. A notice was issued by the landlord on 18th April, 1968 to both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. In that notice it was mentioned that the respondent No. 2 was a tenant but the petitioner was in actual possession of the room as licensee of the respondent No. 2. In that notice, he made demand for arrears of rent and also for possession of the suit premises on the ground of default. By this notice, he also terminated tenancy by the end of 31st May, 1968. It may be mentioned that at that time the amount of arrears of rent was Rs. 543.81. As the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner did not comply with the requirements of the notice, a suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge on 26th June, 1968 and the first date of hearing was 27th March, 1969. In the trial Court, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 denied that the petitioner was a licenses of the respondent No. 2. They pleaded that the respondent No. 2 had vacated the suit premises and that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff himself and that the respondent No. 2 had nothing to do with the petitioner. The petitioner raised the dispute about the standard rate. He also stated that he was ready and willing to pay the amount of the arrears of rent. Necessary issues were framed and the petitioner made a deposit of Rs. 825/- on 7th October, 1969 when admittedly at that time the amount of arrears of rent was Rs. 852.70. The parties led evidence and the learned Judge, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not inducted in the suit premises by respondent No. 2 but he was a tenant of the respondent No. 1. He, therefore, dismissed the suit for possession against both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 on he ground that the notice issued by the respondent No. 1 to the original tenant could not be of any assistance to the landlord for terminating the tenancy of the petitioner. He held that Rs. 889.04 were due from the petitioner as arrears of rent. He, therefore, passed a decree for that amount on 27th November, 1969. The respondent No. 1 then filed an appeal in the District Court. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner deposited Rs. 350/- on 13th October, 1970 and Rs. 50/- on 3rd November, 1970. Thus, in all he had deposited Rs. 1225/- in both the courts. The appeal was heard by the learned District Judge who held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and was a defaulter and in view of the fact that there was a dispute regarding the rent, the suit was governed by Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 12 of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the "Rent Act"). The petitioner had not made application for fixation of standard rent within one month of the receipt of the notice by the landlord, nor had he made deposit on the first day of hearing in the trial Court of the entire amount due and, therefore, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in (Shah Dhansukhlal v. Dalichand) 70 Bom.L.R. 714, he held that the respondent was entitled for a decree of possession. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs claim. It is against this judgment that the present petition has been filed. Mr. Lalit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the appeal was decided on 14th November, 1970 by the learned District Judge and at that time it was not disputed that the arrears of rent were Rs. 1088.91 and the total deposit made by the petitioner was Rs. 1225/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in arrears of rent when the appeal was decided. He submitted that he had raised the dispute about the standard rent by filing the written statement. The trial Judge has not given any instructions nor had he given direction regarding the interim rent that he should deposit in the trial Court. That being the position, he should not be penalised by passing a decree against him for eviction. He submitted that the learned District Judge has observed that the petitioner has substantially deposited the arrears of rent in the trial Court. It also cannot be disputed that he had deposited more amount in the Appellate Court than was due when the appeal was decided. In my view, the submission is not without substance. In a similar case in (Shevantibai Dattatraya Mane v. Vasant Gopal Deshmukh) 74 Bom.L.R. 701 it is observed :