(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 1982 passed by the learned II Extra Assistant Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1980 whereby he confirmed the decree for eviction passed by the learned Additional Small Cause Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No. 2353 of 1975 decided on 18th January, 1980
(2.) The only point for consideration in this petition is whether the courts below erred in finding that the petitioners-defendants failed to comply with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act").
(3.) The relevant facts for the decision of the above point are that the suit premises are owned by the respondents-plaintiff and they are the landlords of the petitioner No. 1-defendant No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 defendant No. 2 is the husband of the petitioner No. 1. The respondents let out the suit premises to the defendant No. 1 in September 1969. The rent was fixed at Rs. 125/- per month. The respondents obtained a construction loan of Rs. 6,000/- from the petitioners and it was agreed between the parties that half the rent should be appropriated towards repayment of the loan. As per this agreement, the petitioner No. 1 paid rent at the rate of Rs. 62.50 P. per month and the amount of Rs. 62.50 P. was appropriated towards the repayment of the construction loan. The petitioners paid rent upto September 1971 and thereafter they discontinued paying rent. They were in arrears of rent from October 1971 till January 1975. The total amount of arrears of rent worked out to Rs. 5,125/-. On 7th February, 1975 the petitioners filed an application under section 11(1) of the Bombay Rent Act for fixation of standard rent. On the same day the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner claiming arrears of rent and also terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent or more than six months and on other grounds. The respondents instituted a suit on 14th August, 1975 for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of the petitioners. The interim standard rent in the proceedings, C.M.A. No. 65 of 1975, was fixed at Rs. 80/- per month on 17th June, 1976. Thereafter the petitioners started depositing rent with the trial Court at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month from 6th August, 1976. The petitioners did not pay the arrears of rent demanded by the respondents for the period from October 1971 to January, 1975. The petitioners, instead of paying the arrears of rent, filed the purshis Ex. 15 and thereby they claimed deduction on account of construction loan and interest. As the petitioners did not deposit the arrears of rent even at the rate of interim standard rent at Rs.80/- per month, the learned trial Judge held that the petitioners were in arrears of rent for more than six months and they did not comply with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and such the learned trial Judge decreed the respondents claim fore eviction on this ground amongst other grounds. In the appeal preferred by the petitioners did not comply with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. According to the learned trial Judge the petitioners should have deposited the arrears of rent at least to the rate of Rs. 40/- per month after appropriating half the interim standard rent of Rs. 40/- per month towards the repayment of the construction loan, and as the petitioners did not deposit in the trial Court the arrears of rent even at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month, the petitioners failed to comply with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Act and as such the decree for eviction on the ground of default in making payment of rent for six months was correct.