SADASHIV SONABA INGALE Vs. ANANDIBAI SAVALARAM CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner Sadashiv, challenge the judgment and order dated 12th August 1982 passed by the Assistant Judge, Satara, in Civil Appeal No. 125/1981. By that judgment, the Appellate Court under the Bombay Rent Act allowed the appeal filed by the landlady Anandibai and set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, dated 26.2.1981 in Civil Suit No. 205/1977, dismissing the suit for possession of the suit premises filed by the landlady Anandibai. The Appellate Court has decreed the suit by his judgment impugned in the petition.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are that the original petitioner Sadashiv was tenant of 4 khans of House No. 72A/1, MalharPeth, Satara, of which the original landlady Anandibai was the owner. Anandibai purchased the suit house by registered sale deed dated 25.5.1971. On 25.4.1977, she issued a notice to the tenant Sadashiv demanding arrears of rent for the period from 1.3.1973 to May 1977. Admittedly, this notice was received by Sadashiv on 26.4.1977. It is also an admitted position that Sadashiv did not send any reply to this notice; did not make payment of arrears of rent to the landlady; he also did not make an application to the Court for fixation of standard rent within one month of receiving the notice. The landlady filed the civil suit seeking a decree of possession against the tenant Sadashiv on two grounds, namely, (i) default committed by the tenant in payment of rent and (ii) bona fide need of the landlady of the suit premises. The trial Court recorded a finding on the question of default against the landlady. The trial Court, however, held that the landlady had established that she bona fide needs the premises for her own occupation. However, the trial Court recorded a finding against the landlady on the question of comparative hardship. In the result, the suit for possession filed by the landlady was dismissed. The landlady carried appeal to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court found on both the questions in favour of the landlady and allowed the appeal. It is this judgment of the Appellate Court which is impugned in this petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondents urged that even if it is assumed that two money orders were sent in the year 1973 and the landlady had refused to accept the amounts sent by money orders and that there was no justification for doing so, still for showing that the tenant is not liable for a decree of eviction against him under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, the tenant, after receiving notice issued by the landlady demanding rent, has either to pay rent or dispute his liability or make an application for fixation of standard rent within a period of one month. In the submission of Shri Bhosale, admittedly, the tenant has done none of these things and therefore the landlady becomes entitled to a decree of eviction against the tenant under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act, Shri Bhosale further urged that even if it is assumed that because the tenant had sent money orders in the year 1973 and therefore the case is not covered by Section 12(3)(a) of the Act, in order to wriggle out of the provisions of Section 12(3)(b), the tenant must show that after he received the suit summons, he deposited the arrears of rent promptly and thereafter went on regularly depositing the amount of rent. In the submission of Shri Bhosale, the tenant has made deposits before the trial court only twice, i.e. on 9.2.1979 and 10.2.1981. Therefore, relying on a Judgment of this Court in the case of Kalandarali v. Shaikh Gulam : 1997(2)BomCR472 he urged that this Court has held that the court under the Bombay Rent Act has no discretion in the matter and that, the tenant has to make deposits on regular basis.