MADHAVRAO RAMCHANDRA BHAGWAT Vs. LAXMANRAO NARAYANRAO BHOPALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the original defendant-tenant challenges the orders passed by the Assistant Judge, Pune, dated 30.9.1981 in Civil Appeal No.562/1979, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 29.8.1979 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baramati, in Civil Suit No.264/1975. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-landlords and that decree has been confirmed by the Appellate Court.

(2.) THE respondent-landlords filed a civil suit claiming that the petitioner is their tenant. They further claimed that they had issued a notice dated 24.2.1975 to the tenant. It was alleged in the notice that the tenant had not paid rent for the period from 1st March 1965 to 31st January 1975. The plaintiffs further claimed that the notice was received by the tenant on 27th February 1975. They further urged that the tenant neither paid the rent, nor disputed his liability to pay the rent, nor did he make an application for fixation of standard rent within one month of the receipt of the notice. Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to a decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The tenant, who was the defendant in the civil suit, filed written statement opposing the claim made in the suit. Parties led evidence and the trial Court, by its judgment dated 29th August 1979, decreed the suit. The trial Court held that the defendant-tenant is in arrears of rent from 1st January 1974 to 31st January 1975 and therefore, according to the trial Court, the plaintiff-landlords are entitled to a decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner did not dispute that he had received the notice dated 24.2.1975 on 27.2.1975. He also did not dispute that the tenant neither replied the said notice disputing his liability to pay the arrears demanded in the notice, nor did he file an application for fixation of standard rent within one month from the date of receipt of the notice. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have recorded a finding that the tenant-petitioner could not establish that he has paid rent for the period from 1.1.1974 to January 1975. The finding recorded by both the Court below that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the period from 1.1.1974 to January 1975 is based on the evidence on record and is a finding of fact. It is the settled law that this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot disturb a finding of fact recorded by subordinate courts unless the finding is vitiated by an error of jurisdiction or for non-observance of the principles of natural justice or there is any apparent or manifest error of law. I have gone through the evidence on record and I find that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that the Courts below have taken into consideration any material which was not relevant or that they have excluded from consideration any material which was relevant. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the period from 1.1.1974 to January 1975, it is clear that he was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months. It is not disputed that the rent was payable by the month and in the face of no dispute being raised by the tenant after receiving the notice, it is clear that the landlords were entitled to a decree of eviction against the tenant under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. No fault can be found with the judgments impugned in this petition.