DHONDO BHIMRAO DESHCHOUGULE Vs. POPATBHAI CHATURBHAI GUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the learned District Judge of Sangli in Civil Appeal No. 163 of 1975 challenged by this petition was legally correct when it was delivered but is rendered incorrect in view of the recent Supreme Court judgment in (Harbanslal v. Prabhudas) 78 Bom.L.R. 213 (S.C.). The petitioner is the owner of a house bearing Municipal House No. 407 situate in Vita of Khanpur Taluka in Sangli District. A part of the suit house, hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises" was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. By a notice dated 9th May, 1973 the petitioner terminated the tenancy of the respondent in respect of the suit premises and called upon him to vacate the suit premises as well as to pay arrears of rent which were due from October 1972 to April, 1973. The arrears of rent were thus for a period of seven months. Within one month after the receipt of this notice the respondent did not file any application for fixation of the standard rent under section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act nor did he send the amount to the petitioner within one month. The petitioner, however, received the arrears of rent sent on 7th July, 1973 which was clearly outside the period of one month from the date of the notice issued under section 12(2). The suit itself was filed on 4th September, 1973.

(2.) The respondent raised a contention in the written statement that the contractual rent of Rs. 15/- p.m. was excessive and prayed for fixation of the standard rent. The trial Court decreed the suit for possession by holding that the respondent was not ready and willing to pay rent within the meaning of section 12(1). However, the trial Court proceeded to fix the standard rent at Rs. 10/- which was less than the agreed rent of Rs. 15/- p.m.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, the respondent preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 163 of 1975 which was allowed by the learned District Judge by his judgment and order dated 5th April, 1976. In view of the view taken by the full bench of this Court that a dispute about standard rent could be raised for the first time in written statement the District Judge was persuaded to hold that the respondent was ready and willing to pay standard rent within the meaning of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. With this view he had no difficulty in allowing the appeal of the respondent and dismissing the suit of the petitioner.