POKARMAL RAMPATMAL Vs. GANGABHISAN LAXMINARAYAN SHOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application has been preferred against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Aurangabad, in Rent Appeal No. 38 of 1972. A few facts may be stated. The petitioner before me was the plaintiff in Rent Suit No. 67 of 1967 in the Court of the rent controller, Jalna. This was an application under section 15(2) of the Hyderabad House, (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, for eviction of the Defendants who are the three tenants before me from Godown No. 35, Municipal No. 3859 (New) and 3792 (Old) situate at New Monda, Jalna. The principle ground on which relief was claimed was that the defendant were wilful defaulters and hence liable to be evicted. The application was under the provisions contained in section 15(2)(i) of the aforesaid Hyderabad act.

(2.) In the application, the Plaintiff referred to a notice on the defendant issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 1st August, 1967 by which notice the plaintiff purported to terminate the tenancy of the defendants. By the said notice the Defendants were called upon to vacate the premises by the end of August 1967.

(3.) It appears from the proceedings before the Rent Controller that after the evidence had been led on behalf of the Plaintiff, time was given to the to the Defendant to lead evidence, if any, as also to pay up the arrears of rent. Neither opportunity was avoided of by the Defendant and ultimately the Rent Controller, Jalna, by his judgment and order dated the 14th of September, 1972 held that the defendants were wilful defaulters, that proper and effective notice as required by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been given and that the Defendant had failed to substantiate their defence taken by them in their written statement that they were entitled to withhold payment of rent inasmuch as they had carried out repairs to the suit godowns for which some adjustment had to be made. On the last point, the onus was obviously on the Defendants which they failed to discharge inasmuch as they did not lead any evidence at all. The defendant appealed to the District Court and before the District Judge all the three points were again canvassed. It was held by the District Judge that there was default by the tenants in payment of rent, but that the tenancy of the appellants before him had not been validity terminated by the notice dated 1st August, 1967. In this view of the matter, the District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside he order of the rent controller. However, he directed the parties to bear their costs in the both the Courts. It is this decision of the district Judge which is assailed in this Revision Application.