RAHANABAI SHAIKH FARID Vs. LAXMAN PIRAJI KUMBHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order of the 5th Additional District Judge, Pune dated 7.12.1993, allowing the Appeal filed by the respondent and setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court in Suit No.1248/1984 dt; 13.12.1989. Civil Suit No.1248/84 was filed by the petitioner, claiming that he is a landlord of one room out of the property bearing no.58 Juna Bazar, Kirkee, Pune. The said suit was filed under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act against the respondent, who is the tenant in the suit premises. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant did not pay the rent from 9.3.1974. Therefore, on 16.4.83 a notice was issued to the tenant by the landlord demanding the arrears of rent. The notice was received by the tenant on 21.4.1983. The tenant replied the said notice, disputing his liability to pay the amount of arrears of rent. The tenant on 27.4.1983 also filed an application for fixation of the standard rent.

(2.) THE Trial Court held that the tenant is defaulter within the meaning of Section 12(3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The other two issues, namely, alternate accommodation secured by the tenant and bonafide need of the landlord were answered in favour of the tenant. The tenant preferred an Appeal being Civil Appeal No.217 of 1990. The Appellate Court decided the Appeal in favour of the tenant. The Appellate Court held that the tenant was not a defaulter within the meaning of the provisions of section 12(3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is this Appellate Court judgment, which is impugned in this petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that after receiving notice the tenant can make an application for fixation of the standard rent if he is disputing the amount of rent claimed by the landlord. The tenant has filed such application before the Court but, the Court did not make an order regarding the fixation of the interim standard rent. The failure of the Court to make an order on interim rent to be deposited by the tenant, does not cast any liability on the tenant to make deposit of any amount in the Court.