RAJU NARAYAN SWAMY Vs. WALA BAHADURSINGH MANUBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.1.1984 passed by the Joint Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No.604/1983. That appeal was filed by the respondent challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1983 passed by the II Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, in Civil Suit No.2565/1980. That civil Suit was filed by the petitioner claiming therein that he is owner of the suit premises, namely, two room tenement in a chawl known as Raju Narayan Swami Chawl at Kasarwadi within the limits of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The landlord sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on several grounds including the ground that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay rent. The trial Court negatived all the grounds urged by the landlord except the ground of default committed by the defendant in payment of rent. The trial Court recorded a finding that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. In the result, the suit for a decree of eviction against the tenant was decreed and the tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court on the ground of default committed by the tenant in payment of rent. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner stood dismissed. In the present petition, the petitioner challenges the finding recorded by the appellate Court on the question of default as also the finding recorded by both the Courts below on the ground that the landlord needs the suit premises for his own bona fide occupation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that because the tenant has not deposited the amount of taxes and has merely deposited the amount of interim rent fixed by the Court in his application filed under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act, a decree under section 12(3) of the Act ought to have been passed against the tenant. The submission of the tenant does not appear to be correct in the face of the provisions of Explanation I appearing below section 12 of the Act. Perusal of that Explanation shows that as soon as a tenant who has received a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act files an application under sub-section(3) of section 11 of the Act within one month of the receipt of the demand notice, a statutory presumption is raised in his favour that he is ready and willing to pay rent, and that statutory presumption continues if the tenant pays or deposits in court the amount of rent or permitted increases specified in the order made by the court. It is an admitted position here that the court in its order made on the application filed under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act has specified an amount of Rs.60/- only to be deposited by the tenant p.m. and it is an admitted position before me that that amount has been regularly deposited by the tenant. Therefore, in my opinion as the tenant has deposited the amount specified in the order of the Court, the statutory presumption raised by Explanation I would continue to operate and for making a decree under section 12 of the the Act it is necessary for the court to record a finding that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay rent. In the face of the statutory fiction operating in favour of the tenant, in the present case no such finding could have been recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged before me that the finding recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellant court on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is not proper. However, the finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard shows that the trial court had found that the plaintiff-petitioner is a bachelor and though presently he is occupying the quarters allotted to him by his employer, even after his retirement he can reside with his mother who is occupying two rooms in the suit building which is owned by the petitioner. The trial Court has also found that it is not the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that the relations between him and his mother are strained. I find no fault in the finding recorded by the trial Court which has been confirmed by the appellate Court.

(3.) In the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.