MADHUKAR SHANKAR PARBHANE Vs. ISHWARDAYAL KAVALRAM AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions arise out of proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act").

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the determination of the point arising in these two petitions may be stated. The petitioner in Writ Petition No 946 of 1983 and the respondent in Writ Petition No. 3029 of 1983 was the defendant in a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 314 of 1980 which was filed by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 946 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3029 of 1983. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to by their character in the trial Court, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant. By an agreement dated 20-1-1969 the plaintiff gave to the defendant a shed situated at House No. 390/C of Shaniwar Peth, Pune on leave and licence. The compensation envisaged under that agreement was Rs. 80 per month. After terminating that agreement on 19-8-1976 on the ground that the defendant had committed a breach of the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No 745 of 1976, in that suit the defendant took up a contention that since the leave and licence agreement was subsisting on 1-2-1973, he became the protected licensee under the Amendment of 1973. In view of this, the plaintiff withdrew the suit, obviously with liberty he filed a fresh suit on the ground that the defendant was a tenant.

(3.) By notice dated 19-12-1979 the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the aforesaid premises (hereinafter referred to as the "suit premises") and called upon him to deliver the possession of the suit premises as the plaintiff required the same reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. In the said notice a demand was also made upon the defendant to pay up the arrears of rent which were for a period of more thin six months. This latter demand was obviously under Sec. 12 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. Within one month after the receipt of this notice, namely on 16-1-1980. the defendant filed an application, being Miscellaneous, Application No. 36 of 1980 under Sec. 11(3) of the Bombay Rent Act and deposited the entire arrears of rent in that application. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 314 of 1980 on 31-1-1980. In this suit claim for possession of the suit premises was made on two grounds, namely, that the defendant in arrears of rent for a period of six months and more and he had not compelled with the demand made under Sec. 12 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act and secondly, the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation.