NARAYAN DEORAM SONAR Vs. SAPTASHRINGI MANDIR TRUST MALEGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5.3.1984 passed by the District Judge, Nasik, in Civil Appeal No.2/1982. That appeal was filed by the present petitioner challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malegaon, dated 7.11.1981, in Regular Civil Suit No.66/1975. That civil suit was initially filed by plaintiff No.2 Devidas, who is respondent No.2 in this petition, claiming therein that he is owner of Survey No.10 of Malegaon, District Nasik, and that land admeasuring 10' x 10' is given on rent to the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the Trust of the land was created of which the plaintiff No.2 was the sole trustee and therefore the trust was joined as plaintiff No.1. The landlord sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. Both the courts below have found that by notice dated 9.12.1974 rent for 94 months was demanded. The notice was received by the tenant on 14.12.1974; but the tenant neither made payment of thee arrears demanded by the notice nor did he file an application for fixation of standard rent nor did he dispute his liability to pay the amount of arrears of rent. The trial court therefore passed a decree under section 12(3)(a) of the Act against the tenant directing him to vacate the suit premises. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The present petition is thus directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before me that from 1967 till 1973 the tenant was sending the rent by money orders but the money orders were not being accepted by the landlord and therefore thereafter the amount of rent was not sent. In the submission of the learned counsel, therefore. it cannot be said that the tenant was not ready and willing to pay rent. It is, however, to be seen here that even if it is assumed that the landlord did not accept the money orders sent by the tenant till 1973 without any justification, then also it does not preclude the landlord from issuing a demand notice under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. The notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act gives an opportunity to the tenant to tender to the landlord the amount of arrears of rent which according to the tenant are due from him to the landlord. The tenant cannot withhold the amount of arrears after receiving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act on the ground that previously the landlord was not accepting the money orders sent by the tenant. I do not think that the conduct of the landlord in not accepting the money orders sent from 1967 to 1973 by the tenant disentitled him to issue the notice of demand under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. No other ground was urged before me. I do not find any error of law in the orders impugned in this petition so as to merit interference at the hands of this court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.