UTTAMCHAND JAWANMAL GUGALE Vs. RAMBILAS RAMKISAN SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are heirs of one Uttamchand Gugale who was the defendant in a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 714 of 1974, filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Ahmednagar for possession of the premises tenanted by the said Uttamchand on the ground, among others, that the said Uttamchand was in arrears of rent for a period of six months or more which arrears were not cleared within one month from the receipt of the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Act.' Some dates preceding the institution of the suit ought to be mentioned. On 17th of September, 1974, the plaintiff sent the notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act demanding from the tenant a sum of Rs. 525 as arrears of permitted increases and rent said to be in arrears from Ist of November, 1973 to 31st of August, 1974. The notice did not mention the rate at which the rent was payable. Similarly the landlord did not mention the period for which the sum or Rs. 525 was due towards permitted increases. This notice was received by the tenant on 20th of September, 1974. On 1st October, 1974, the tenant despatched rent of Rs. 350 by money order. Subsequently certain amount was also sent by cheque. The money order amount is said to have been refused by the landlord.

(2.) THE plaintiff thereafter, filed the present suit on 31st December, 1974. The suit was resisted by the tenant, Uttamchand, by contending that the rent demanded was excessive. An issue relating to the same raised in the trial Court and it was held that the standard rent of the suit premises was Rs. 75 per month. One cannot help forming an impression that the increase in rent which was awarded by the Court of first instance must have been on the basis of some sort of understanding between the parties. The learned trial Judge, in the light of the law then understood, held that there was a dispute about the standard rent. The case was, therefore, held to be governed by the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Since the learned trial Judge found that the defendant had complied with the requirement of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, he dismissed the suit for possession. However, decree for some amount was passed. This was done on 22nd of June, 1978.

(3.) DURING the pendency of this petition the original tenant having died his heirs have been brought on record. Mr. Joshi, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has sought to show that the demand made by the plaintiff was for a sum which was not due. In this connection he invited my attention to the discussion made in the Court of first instance on Exhibit 31. According to Mr. Joshi, this exhibit shows that the arrears of rent till the date of receipt had been cleared and if some amount is shown as arrears in that receipt that must necessarily be in relation to the permitted increases. If one calculates the arrears of rent from the date of that receipt till the date of the notice, the amount of Rs. 350 sent by the tenant fully satisfies the arrears. Therefore, the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act were not attracted at all.