SIDRAMAPPA ISHWARAPPA HIBARE Vs. PAMANDAS KESUMAL JANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 16.2.1983 passed by the III Extra Assistant Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No.277/1981. That appeal was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 challenging the order dated 30.1.1981 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, in Regular Civil Suit No.835/1974. That suit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 claiming therein that they are owners of Municipal House No.380 in South Kasba, Solapur, and that the original defendant No.1 Sidramappa, of whom the petitioners are the legal representatives, was tenant of a shop in the said building. The landlords sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the tenant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. The trial Court found against the landlords on all the points and dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the landlords, the appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the trial court on the ground of default committed by the tenant in payment of rent and held that a decree under section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act was liable to be passed against the tenant. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the landlords for a decree of eviction against the tenant stood decreed. Therefore, it is this order of the appellate Court which is challenged in the present petition.

(2.) IT is to be noted here that the appellate court has found that because the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.11.1971, a notice dated 29.1.1973 was issued by the landlords under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act demanding arrears of rent. Before issuing the demand notice, the tenant had filed an application for fixation of standard rent. Therefore, the court found that decree under section 12(3)(a) of the Act cannot be passed against the tenant. However, still the tenant had to satisfy the requirement of section 12(3)(b) of the Act. The tenant had to satisfy the court that on the first date of the hearing of the suit, he deposited arrears of rent in the court. The appellate Court has found that the first date of the hearing of the suit was 5.2.1975 whereas the first deposit has been made by the tenant on 12.6.1975 and therefore a decree of eviction was liable to be passed against him.

(3.) IN the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.