BHAIYAJI GOVINDRAO BHOYAR Vs. DEORAO NAGORAO NAITAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the dismissal of his application by both the Courts, i. e. the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the landlord filed this petition challenging the orders. Very significantly enough, the Rent Controller had proceeded against the tenant ex-parte and yet found himself unable to accept the affidavit of the landlord. He therefore, rejected the affidavit as vague and held that the landlord could not prove his case under Clause 13 (3) (i), (ii), (vi) and (ix) of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The appellate Court also took the same view and held that even if the affidavit of the landlord filed in pursuance of the ex-parte order was accepted word by word, no order could be passed.

(2.) THE landlord contended in his application that the tenant was occupying one block on the rent of Rs. 110/- per month excluding the electric charges. THE tenancy was month to month tenancy and the rent was payable on the expiry of the tenancy month. In his application, he further contends simply that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months on the date of application. On the second count, he asserts that the non-applicant had become irregular in payment and he was a habitual defaulter. On the third Court, he had stated that the applicant needed the additional accommodation for his bonafide use as the present accommodation was insufficient. Lastly, he contends that the non-applicant and his family members had committed nuisance. All the pleadings were almost telegraphic. THEre were no pleadings besides the one which have been reproduced above. On the first count, the landlord did not state as to the details of the arrears or for how many months the tenant had fallen in arrears. On the second count, he did not file any schedule nor did he show as to how the tenant had become a habitual defaulter. On the third count, no reason whatsoever was given for the so-called bonafide use and occupation of the premises in question. No reason was stated at all as to why the present accommodation had become insufficient. On the fourth count also, nothing was stated as to what is the nature of the nuisance. It seems that to this application, the tenant gave a detailed written statement. He pointed out that it was the landlord only who was not giving a separate water connection though he had agreed to give one. On the first count, his contention was that he was not in arrears of three months of rent at all and it was the landlord who used to pick up the quarrel and on that count refused to accept the rent. He pointed out that he had sent the rent by money orders on 5-3-1985, 2-4-1985 and 8-5-1985 wherein he had offered the whole rent and it was further pointed out that all the money orders were sent back. He pointed out that a suit was filed against him but the same came to be withdrawn. He further pointed out that though the money orders were refused, the tenant had paid Rs. 550/- to the Counsel of the applicant and the Counsel had also passed a receipt dated 14-8-1996. He pointed out that he had also deposited the rent of Rs. 660/- in the Court and thus he could not have been said to be in arrears of rent for more than three months. As regards the habitual default also, he pointed out that he was not to be blamed as he was regularly sending the money orders which were regularly refused. As regards the bonafide use, he pointed out that there were only two family members in the family of the landlord and that the plea was also vaguely raised, as the landlord had avoided to state as to how many persons were there in the family and how many rooms were there in the house. On the fourth count, he pointed out that the allegations were false, vague and baseless, as nothing was stated about the nuisance.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition has no merits and must be dismissed with costs. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. ____________ .