ALLIMIYA BABA PHANSOPKAR Vs. SHAIKH KASAM HUSSEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 14th December, 1984 passed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri in Civil Appeal No.161 of 1984. That Appeal was filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and decree dated 21st September, 1982 passed by the Civil Suit No.46 of 1979. That Civil Suit was filed by the respondent No.1 claiming therein that he is the owner of House No.328 at Rajivada, Ratnagiri and that the petitioners are tenants. The landlord claimed a decree of eviction against the tenants on several grounds including that the tenants are not ready and willing to pay the rent. The trial Court recorded finding in favour of the landlord and held that the tenants are not ready and willing to pay rent and decreed the suit in favour of the landlord and directed the tenants to vacate the suit premises. In appeal filed by the tenants, the finding was confirmed by the appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed. Therefore what is challenged in the present petition is the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below. Now the two Courts below have found that a notice dated 6th January, 1979 was issued by the landlord to the tenants under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act demanding arrears of rent from February, 1976. The Courts below have however found that Rs.250/- were paid in advance by the tenants. Therefore, a discount of that amount has been given. However, both the Courts below have found that the tenants were in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months. The Courts have also found that within one month of the receipt of this demand notice, the tenants have neither made payment of the arrears of rent demanded or the amount that according to the tenants was due from them to the landlord nor filed any application for fixation of standard rent within one month of receipt of the notice. Therefore, both the Courts have found that a decree of eviction is liable to be passed against the tenants.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners urged before me that by the demand notice the amount due from the tenants from February 1976 was just demanded. However, both the Courts have found that the rent from February, 1976 was not due. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the demand notice is invalid. It is, however, to be seen here that as a result of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Purshottam Bhanudas Palse vs. Shakuntalabai W.P.No.3658 of 1981, and other connected petitions decided on 13.12.95 now the law as it stands today is that merely because excessive demand of rent is made in the notice, the notice does not become invalid unless the tenant makes an allegation that the landlord has dishonestly made an excessive demand in the demand notice. In the present case, no such allegation is made in relation to the demand notice. Therefore, in my opinion, merely because excessive demand is made in the demand notice, the demand notice does not become invalid. No other point was urged before me.