PRATAP MUKTASA TAK Vs. GIOPAL PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.4.1985 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Nashik, in Civil Appeal No.315/1983. That appeal was filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 14.3.1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sinnar, Nasik, in Regular Civil Suit No 190/1975. That civil suit was filed by the respondent claiming that he is owner of House No.1196 of Sinnar and that he petitioner is a tenant in relation to portion east-west 3 khans and south-north 4 khans. The landlord sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on two grounds : (1) that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay rent and (2) that the landlord needs the suit premises for his own bona fide occupation. The trial court recorded findings against the landlord and dismissed the suit of the landlord for a decree of eviction against the tenant. In the appeal filed by the landlord, the appellate court reversed the findings recorded by the trial court on the ground of the tenant not being ready and willing to pay rent and held that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent and therefore the landlord is entitled to a decree under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. As a result, the appeal filed by landlord was allowed and the suit filed by the landlord against the tenant was decreed and the tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises. It is this order of the appellate court which is challenged in the present petition.

(2.) IT is to be found here that the suit property was purchased by the present landlord by registered sale deed dated 6.3.1975. In the sale deed, there is a recital that the tenant on the property is in arrears of rent and the right to recover those arrears is also transferred to the present landlord. Therefore, the landlord issued notice under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act demanding arrears of rent, on 4.8.1975. Admitted position is that the notice has been received by the tenant. It is further an admitted position that the tenant has neither made payment of the amount demanded by the notice nor has he made an application under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act for fixation of standard rent.

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