SITABAI R SHITUT Vs. LAXMIBAI P LIMAYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no substance in the above Special Civil Application directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri, on June 19, 1976, evicting the petitioner, from the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The trial Court had dismissed the suit for possession, on June 27, 1974, directing the plaintiff to get from defendants 1-B and 1-C Rs. 30/- as he came to the conclusion that after the filing of the written statement, the defendants 1-B and 1-C had deposited all the arrears of rent, with costs, and there was a dispute about the standard rents, and the defendants were made right under section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. The decision was challenged by the landlord on the ground that the defendant having been held to be a defaulter in payment of rent from January 1970, to April 1971, amounting to Rs. 320/- and also by non-payment of the education cess of Rs. 15/- and having further found that the rent of Rs. 20/- was not excessive and it was the standard rent it was wrong not to evict the petitioner. The contention on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted by the learned District Judge, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court, in (Harbanslal Jagmohandas v. Prabhudas Shivlal) 78 Bom.L.R. 213 where it is laid down that the tenant can claim protection from the operation of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, only if the tenant makes an application within on month terminating the tenancy, raising a dispute regarding the standard rent. In the present case it is undisputed that the tenant had made no application within one month, nor he had paid the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the notice. The decree passed by the learned District Judge is, therefore, consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court and does not call for any interference by this Court. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to mention that the learned Counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the Special Civil Application is not maintainable because defendants 1-A and 1-D to 1-H had chosen to be ex parte before the trial Court. Mr. Baadkar has rightly pointed out that the suit was tried not as ex parte against the occupants of the suit premises defendants 1-B and 1-C, who are the petitioners in the above Special Civil Application, and, therefore, there is no merit in the preliminary objection. The Special Civil Application fails. Rule is discharged with costs. The amounts if any deposited by the petitioners in the lower Court, may be withdrawn by the plaintiff and the plaintiffs shall adjust the same towards the decretal dues. The papers be sent down immediately.