BAGHWAN KONDIBA RAUT Vs. DATTATRAY MARUTI DOIFODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two petitions, the petitioners are different but the Respondent is the same. The petitioners in both these petitions are the tenant of the House No. 542 Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel St. Pune-1, which is owned by the Respondent.

(2.) THE facts in both these petitions are almost identical and question that falls for consideration in both these petitions is also the same. Both these petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Therefore, both these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) THE Respondent-landlord had issued a notice dt. 1/8/1978, to the petitioners-tenants demanding arrears of rent which were for the period of more than 6 months. The demand notice issued under sub-section 2 of Sec.12 of the Bombay Rent Act, was received by the tenants on 5/8/1978. Within one month of the receipt of the demand notice, admittedly the petitioners have sent replies to the demand notices, disputing their liabilities to make the payment. However, the admitted position is that the application under sub-section 3 of Sec.11 of the Bombay Rent Act, was filed in both the cases on 14/9/1978, which is admittedly beyond the period of one month room the date of receipt of demand notices by both the tenants. Both the courts below have held that after receiving the demand notices, demanding arrears of rent for the period of more than 6 months, the tenants after disputing their liability to pay the rent within one month, have not filed Standard Rent Application within one month, and therefore, they are liable to a decree of eviction u/s.12(3) (a) of the said Act.