LAWS(BOM)-1986-9-16

PANNALAL KHIVRAJ DUGAD Vs. JANARDHAN GOPAL DESHPANDE

Decided On September 12, 1986
PANNALAL KHIVRAJ DUGAD Appellant
V/S
JANARDHAN GOPAL DESHPANDE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the passing and confirmation of a decree for ejectment based upon the alleged default in payment of rent and the professed need of the landlords of the premises for their personal use and occupation. The questions that arise for determination in this petition have to be considered in the following background :- Respondents-plaintiffs are the landlords of the suit premises and the petitioner-defendant a tenant thereof, on an agreement to pay rent of Rs. 15/- per month. On 9th January, 1979 the plaintiffs addressed a notice to the defendant informing him that he was in arrears of rent since February, 1973 and that his tenancy was deemed determined at the end of the calendar month February, 1979 because the premises was required for the personal use and occupation of two persons amongst them, viz. plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The said notice was served upon defendant on 12th January, 1979. On 18th January, 1979 the defendant moved Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1979 contending that the agreed rent was excessive and that it was necessary to determine the standard rent. On 3rd February, 1979 the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 1093.90 Ps. i.e. the exact amount claimed in plaintiffs notice dated 9th January, 1979. On March 26, 1979 the plaintiffs filed the suit in which the decree came to be passed. They contended that defendant had been in arrears of rent and that his failure to comply with the obligations laid down by the Rent Act upon tenants, rendered him liable to be ejected. Next, it was pleaded that plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 had retired from railway service and were staying in Manmad and Chalisgaon respectively, and that in rented premises, because of defendants failure to vacate the suit premises. These premises were reasonably and in good faith required for the personal residence of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2. On both the grounds, defendant was liable to be ejected. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was consolidated along with defendants application for fixation of standard rent. The trial Court held that the agreed rent was the standard rent, that defendant was liable to be ejected because of his being a defaulter in the payment of rent and affirmed the plaintiffs need under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, Rent Act or Act). The resultant decree was questioned in an appeal to the District Court at Nasik. The Appellate Court confirmed the findings and the decree passed by the trial Court.

(2.) Mr. Rane for the petitioner submits that the statutory Courts had erred in holding defendant to be a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. As a matter of fact, the entire rent due had been cleared before the institution of the plaintiffs suit. Therefore, no cause of action for evicting the defendant on the ground of default in the payment of rent survived when the suit came to be instituted. The statutory courts had failed to take into account a Division Bench judgment of this Court in (Narhar Vani v. Narmadabai Nave) 1984 Maharashtra Law Journal 313. The courts below had also erred in accepting the plea that the premises was required reasonably and in good faith for the personal use and occupation of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. In any case after the confirmation of the decree by the Appellate Court, plaintiff No. 1 acting as the Karta had entered into a agreement to sell the suit premises to one Sohanlal Ratanchand Dugal. This agreement had taken place on 8th January, 1986 and the intended purchaser had parted with Rs. 1000/- towards earnest. The balance of the price was to be paid by him in ten months. This agreement was conclusive proof that there was no truth in the plaintiffs professed need vide section 13(1)(g) of the Act.

(3.) Plaintiffs, through their Counsel Mr. Angal, supported the decree obtained. In relation to the agreement dated 8th January, 1986 plaintiff No. 1 tendered an affidavit which was on behalf of himself and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 4. This affidavit recites that plaintiff No. 1 had no authority to enter into any transaction on behalf of the remaining plaintiffs. He had a mere 1/4th interest in the co-parcenary property. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 had not given consent to the agreement entered into with Sohanlal. Therefore, on both the grounds the decree passed by the statutory courts was right, and had to be affirmed.