SHARAD RAMCHANDRA SHROTRI Vs. JAMNABAI BABU RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 16.11.1984 passed by the Assistant Judge, Satara, in Regular Civil Appeal No.7/1982. That appeal was filed by respondent No.1 Jamnabai challenging the judgment and decree passed by the II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad, dated 10.12.1981, in Regular Civil Suit No.173/1975. That civil suit was filed by one Sharad Ramchandra Shrotri, of whom the present petitioners are the legal representatives, claiming therein that he is owner of house property bearing No.239/38, Shaniwar Peth, Karad, and that two khans from this building, Nos.15 and 16, were leased out to one Babu Rathod, of whom respondent No.1 is the widow and respondent No.2 Gopal is the son. 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. Initially, only Gopal was joined as a defendant to the suit. Jamnabai thereafter made an application to join her as defendant No.2. Her application was allowed and she was joined as defendant No.2. The trial court, on the basis of the evidence on record, recorded finding in favour of the landlord and decreed the suit, directing the defendants to vacate the suit premises. The judgment and decree of the trial court were challenged in appeal only by Jamnabai. The appellate court, however, reversed the finding recorded by the trial court and held that as the demand notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act was not served on Jamnabai who, according to the appellate court, was the tenant of the premises, the institution of the suit itself was infirm. After recording this finding, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Therefore, it is this judgment of the appellate court which is challenged in the present petition.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding this petition are that the original tenant Babu Rathod expired in the year 1970. Thereafter the rent receipts were issued in the name of Gopal, the respondent No.2. Therefore, according to the landlord, Gopal became tenant of the suit premises after the death of original tenant Babu Rathod. The landlord issued demand notice under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act only to Gopal and as Gopal did not comply with the demand notice, the suit was filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Jamnabai, firstly, urged that at the time of the death of the original tenant Babu, Gopal was not residing with Babu; therefore, he cannot become a tenant of the suit premises. He next urged that as Jamnabai has stated in her deposition that at the time of the death of the tenant, Gopal was a minor and she was his guardian, Gopal cannot become tenant of the suit premise. He further urged that the rent receipts which show that Jamnabai paid rent on behalf of Gopal do not depict the clear picture because, according to the learned counsel, all that Jamnabai did was paying the rent. He submitted that because Jamnabai has stated in her deposition that she is an illiterate lady, she did not know what was written in the rent receipts.