LAWS(BOM)-1995-12-69

SADANAND VAIKUNHA BHENDE Vs. GANGADHAR SUBRAO KOPPIKAR

Decided On December 12, 1995
Sadanand Vaikunha Bhende Appellant
V/S
Gangadhar Subrao Koppikar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant challenging the decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). The Trial Court passed a decree under Section 12(3)(b) i.e. not depositing the rent regularly, Section 13(1)(e) - unlawfully sub-letting, Section 13(1)(a) causing waste and damage to suit premises, Section 13(1)(1) - the tenant was allotted suitable residential premises, and Section 13(1)(c) - the conduct of the tenant was such that it amounted to nuisance and annoyance to neighbouring occupiers. The said decree came to be confirmed by the Appellate Court on the grounds of Section 12(3)(a) i.e. default in paying rent, Section 13(1)(e), Section 13(1) and Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) A few facts are as follows :-

(3.) I shall take up each ground separately and decide it. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the Appellate Court has committed an error in holding that the petitioner was liable to be evicted under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act and in further holding that protection under Section 12(3)(b) is not available to the petitioner. He submitted that the respondents ought not to have refused the cheque of Rs. 1149.83 sent by the petitioner covering rent and permitted increased till the end of March 1966. The rent was correctly sent as per the agreement and it was an error to refuse it on the ground that it was not a proper tender. If that is taken into consideration then the arrears on the date of demand notice dated 24.9.1966 would be only for five months. Therefore, no decree could have been passed under section 12(3)(a). He further submitted that the respondents could not have just returned the loan when the petitioner wanted to continue as tenant. The respondents ought to have adjusted half the rent as per the agreement and demanded balance as the petitioner has not encashed the cheque sent by the respondents. The demand notice was therefore invalid.