RAMRAO DADAJI PAWAR Vs. RAMKRISHNA DATTATRAYA DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.

(2.) THIS is a tenant's petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. The Trial Court passed decree against tenant petitioner and in favour of the respondent. The decree of eviction was challenged in the Appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal. One of the grounds on which the decree has been passed by the trial Court is the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The landlord has given notice to the tenant demanding the arrears of rent for the period from 1.9.1981 to 31.11.1983. The notice was sent by registered post, acknowledgement due. However, the tenant refused to accept it. There was no application filed by the tenant within the period of one month in the Court, as required by the provisions of Section 11(3) of the Act, disputing his liability in payment of arrears of rent. The Courts below have held that the case is covered by the provisions of Section 12(3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tenant had carried out some repairs of the tenanted premises and the amount required for it, had to be adjusted towards rent. However, in the absence of any reply given to the notice issued by the landlord and in the absence of any application being made to the Court by the tenant, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in relation to the adjustment of an amount spent towards the repairs of suit premises, requires no consideration. The provisions of the Act made in this regard, have to be followed strictly. In such a case, when the landlord served notice under section 12(2) (a) of the Act on the tenant, immediately after receipt of the notice, the tenant has to dispute his liability to pay rent or make an application to the Court within the period of one month for fixation of standard rent. If these requirements are not satisfied then the Court is left with no alternative but to make a decree in favour of the landlord. It is not in dispute that the rent was payable by month and that there was no dispute raised regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases between the landlord and tenant. In the absence of any reply to the notice and in the absence of any application for fixation of the standard rent, the Courts below are right in recording the findings in favour of the landlord and against the tenant, and this court cannot interfered with the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the landlord has not proved that the notice was served on the tenant. The notice was sent by registered post, acknowledgement due and it came back with an endorsement made by the postman "refused". It is clear from this endorsement that the addressee i.e. tenant refused to accept the notice. The endorsement has presumptive value, which could disclose that the notice was actually tendered to him. There has been no evidence led by the tenant to displace this presumption. In the evidence the tenant has stated that he was in hospital during that period. However, there are no pleadings to that effect in the written statement. Therefore, the courts below have refused to consider an oral evidence led by the tenant in the absence of any pleadings in the written statement. In views of the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the Courts below which are based on evidence and material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case for interference at the hands of this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.