DHONDIRAM NAGUJI NAVALE Vs. MADHAV DHUNDIRAJ PHALNIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.2.1995 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, in Appeal No.182/1994. By that judgment, the Appellate Court under the Bombay Rent Act has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. In that appeal, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 11.3.1994 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, in R.A.E. & R.Suit No.1485/5049/1974. The trial Court had decreed the suit for possession filed by the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent had filed the civil suit praying for a decree of eviction against the respondent. The respondent-plaintiff claimed in the suit that the petitioner-defendant was his tenant of a block of 3 rooms on the first floor of Geeta Building situate at Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bombay. He claimed that the tenancy was created by an agreement dated 24.9.1960. He further claimed that on 14.12.1973 he had issued a notice to the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for the period from 1.1.1973 to 30.11.1973. He further stated that the petitioner did not pay the entire arrears of rent claimed by him and therefore he was a defaulter. The defendant-petitioner appeared in Court and disputed the claim made by the petitioner. In the plaint, the respondent had claimed a decree not only on the ground of default committed by the tenant in payment of rent but he had also claimed a decree of possession on the ground that the tenant has shifted to other premises and that the tenant has not been using the suit premises. The trial Court, however found in favour of the plaintiff only on one ground, namely, default, and the contentions of the plaintiff on the other grounds were rejected. Therefore, in the appeal filed by the tenant also, only one ground was considered, namely default. It is these two judgments which are impugned in this petition.

(3.) SHRI Patwardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, urged that it is true that though municipal taxes were demanded by the notice, the bills which were required to be produced according to clause 3of the agreement were not produced. However, in the submission of Shri Patwardhan, the tenant was aware of the municipal taxes and, therefore, he was under a duty to pay the same.