NAMDEO BHAGOJI BHONGADE Vs. MARUTI APPAJI KHALADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the tenant challenging the judgment of the 7th Additional District Judge, Pune, dated 27.11.1992, in Civil Appeal No.133/1991, dismissing the said appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant and confirming the judgment and order dated 12.10.1990 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon-Maval, in Regular Civil Suit No.134/1987.

(2.) REGULAR Civil Suit No.134/1987 was filed by the respondents, who are the landlords of the suit premises, which are occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. The respondents claimed a decree of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that he was a defaulter. In the plaint, it was the case of the respondents that the tenant-petitioner had not paid rent from the month of January 1986 and, therefore, a notice dated 14.7.1987 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. The notice was replied by the petitioner and it was stated that the amount of rent has been paid. In the written statement, the petitioner stated that, after receiving the notice, he had sent the amount demanded in the notice by money order. However, the landlord-respondents did not accept the money order. The trial Court, holding that the petitioner did not prove that the landlord-respondents had refused to accept the money order and also holding that during the pendency of the suit, the amount of interest on the amount of arrears of rent was not deposited by the tenant, came to the conclusion that the landlords were entitled to a decree of possession. The Appellate Court confirmed this finding and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing or the respondents urged before me that the postal receipt which has been filed on record does not bear the postal stamp or endorsement that the landlord refused to accept the amount. Therefore, in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, the tenant has not proved that the landlord refused to accept the money order and, therefore, it is established on record that the tenant was in arrears of rent.