MOHANLAL GOKULCHANDJI Vs. KHIMRAJ BHAGAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE the fact that there is a somewhat long history of litigation between the parties, it would be enough for the purpose of the disposal of this petition to narrate only few facts. The petition arises out of the proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'). The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the suit premises which are one Gala in House No. 85 at village Bhaindar, in Thana taluka of Thana District. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner is the son -in -law of the respondent but his wife is dead for some years. Originally there was an agitation about the character of the holding of the petitioner as to whether it was a licence or a lease. That controversy no longer survives and the parties have now proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the suit premises.

(2.) THE respondent filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 1971, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, of Thana for possession of the suit premises from the petitioner on various grounds. Among those grounds was one that the petitioner was in arrears of the rent of the suit premises for three months and he was not a person ready and willing to pay the amount of standard rent and permitted increases within the meaning of Section 12(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The other grounds which were pressed into service by the landlord have been rejected by both the Courts below and it is not necessary for me to refer to the same. The defence set up by the petitioner included the dispute about the standard rent which was raised for the first time in the written -statement. He denied that he was not ready and willing to pay the rent and some defences appropriate to the grounds which had been urged by the respondent for eviction were also taken.

(3.) ON September 17, 1973, i.e., nearly two years after the interim rent was fixed by the trial Court, the respondent presented an application to the Court at exh. 26 wherein he pointed out that for thirty -five1 months upto the date of that application nearly Rs. 7,000 were due as arrears of rent and the petitioner had paid only Rs. 4,800. The petitioner thus remained in arrears of rent of nearly eleven months. On this application the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner made his submission on the same day and on the same day the learned Judge passed an order that the application 'be heard'. I have already mentioned above that the trial Court dismissed the suit on January 31, 1974 but before that happened, by an application at exh. 74 the advocate of the petitioner pointed out to the Court that the rent upto the end of December 1973 had been paid except for the amount of Rs. 200 which remained to be paid because of a mistake in the calculation and the amount of Rs. 200 was paid on the same day i.e. on January 29, 1974 and the learned trial Judge passed an order as follows : 'filed'.