MADHUKAR DIGAMBAR JOSHI Vs. MARUTI GENU SASANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-landlord has filed this petition for a writ of cetriori.

(2.) TWO shops in Kasba Peth, Pune, were in possession of the defendant-Maruti. He died pending this litigation and his legal heirs have been brought on record. However, the defendant will be mentioned and described as the original defendant-Maruti. The agreed rent of the premises was Rs. 32193/-. The plaintiff's case in brief is that till April, 1977, the defendant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 241.29. The plaintiff, therefore, gave a notice (Ex. 5) demanding these arrears. The defendant gave a reply (Ex. 56) stating therein that he has paid all the rent up to December, 1976 and that the subsequent rent is being paid. The plaintiff filed suit No. 1992 of 1977 on September 1, 1977. The Small Cause Court, Pune, decreed the suit. The defendant took the matter in appeal No. 336 of 1981. The appeal was allowed and plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. It was held that the defendant was not in arrears as claimed.

(3.) THE rent for the month of January 1977 appears to have been paid. There is a money order for Rs. 64/- to cover the rent for the months of February and March. It was sent on February 23, 1977. It appear that the money-order has been refused. Thus, it can safely be held that the rent upto March 1977 was either paid or offered. However, this position would not be of much use to the defendant inasmuch as even according to the defendant, the rent of April 1977 was due when the notice dated May 25, 1977 was issued. The case would thus fall within the purview of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act as the arrears were for less than six months. It was necessary for the defendant to pay all the arrears on the first date of hearing and also continue to pay the subsequent rent regularly. It is, however, not disputed that during the pendency of the suit the defendant has not paid or deposited any amount towards these arrears. Thus there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 12(3)(b). The suit was, therefore, properly decreed. It is true that during the pendency of the appeal the defendant has deposited Rs. 2,250/- but that deposit will not be of any avail particularly when the defendant had already incurred the liability for eviction on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 12(3)(b). Shri Mandlik submitted that the defendant is carrying on business in the premises and that some reasonable time may be granted for vacating the property. I think that six months period will meet the ends of justice.