(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -tenant challenges the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below under the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of bona fide need and the finding recorded in favour of the landlords by the Appellate Court on the ground of default.
(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant in relation to open space admeasuring 20' x 10', C.T.S. No. 2514, situate at Barshi. The original landlord filed the suit claiming that he needs the suit premises for setting up of business of his son Yeshwant and also claiming that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The trial Court found the ground of bona fide need of the landlord as proved. However, it held that the tenant is not a defaulter. The Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court on the question of bona fide need. However, it reversed the finding of the trial Court on the question whether the petitioner -tenant is a defaulter or not.
(3.) FOR consideration of the rival contentions, it becomes necessary to consider the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. Section 12(3)(b) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, reads as under : In any other case no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if, on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted increase till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court. It is to be seen that this Court in Kalandarali Akbarali Kazi v. Shaikh Gulam Ibrahim. : 1997(2)BomCR472 relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganpat v. Shashikant, reported in : [1978]3SCR198 has held that so far as the deposits to be made by the tenant under Section 12(3)(b) is concerned, there is no discretion in the Court. It is a duty cast on the tenant to make the deposits and therefore if the tenant is admittedly not regular in making the deposits, then the fact that the Court permitted him to make the deposits would not make any difference. In view of the judgment of this Court in Kalandarali's case it is clear that there is an obligation cast on the tenant by Section 12(3)(b) of the Act to make deposits of rent regularly and the Court has no discretion in the matter. Therefore, the Appellate Court, in my opinion, was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court on the question of default on the part of the tenant.