PANDIT LAXMAN PUNEKAR Vs. DIGAMBAR GANGARAM DANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14.3.1985 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Solapur, in Appeal No.206/1983. That appeal was filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 21.1.1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur, in Civil Suit No.321/1979. That civil suit was also filed by the respondent claiming therein that he is owner of house bearing City Survey No.909-A, situate at Pandharpur. The landlord claimed a decree of possession against the tenant on the ground that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. It was claimed in the plaint that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit house. The trial Court, however, recorded finding against the landlord and dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the landlord, the appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence on record and reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and found that the landlord has established that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. As a result, the appeal filed by the landlord was allowed and the suit filed by the landlord for a decree of eviction against the tenant was decreed and the tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises. Therefore, it is this order of the appellate Court which is challenged in this petition.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding this petition are that a notice dated 12.10.1978 was issued under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act by the landlord to the tenant demanding arrears of rent from October 1968 to September 1978. It is pertinent to note here that in the notice itself the landlord stated that for this period the landlord has received an amount of Rs.476/- by money orders. Thus an amount of Rs.964/ is in arrears from the tenant as rent. Admitted fact is that the demand notice was duly received by the tenant. The tenant did not send any reply to the demand notice. He also did not make payment of the arrears of rent. He also did not make an application under Section 11(3) of the Act within one month of the receipt of the notice, as required by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the appellate Court found that the Court had no option but to pass a decree of eviction against the tenant under section 12(3)(a) of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next urged that some amounts were paid in cash by the tenant to the landlord. However, it is to be seen here that the appellate Court has found that even according to the tenant the amounts in cash were paid by his father and he does not know anything about them. Admitted position is that the father who is supposed to have paid those amounts has not been examined as a witness because he is no more and the tenant has not led any other evidence to establish the payments of the amounts in cash. Therefore, the appellate Court has concluded that the tenant has failed to prove that any amount was paid to the landlord in cash. I find that the entire case turns on the appreciation of evidence on record and there is no patent or apparent error of law in the finding recorded by the appellate Court so as to merit interference at the hands of this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.