MANIK RAMCHANDRA CHAUDHARI Vs. GAJANAN SHANKAR PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Manik Ramchandra Chaudhari, the original defendant since deceased and now represented by his legal representative by means of this writ petition has challenged the judgment and decree passed by 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Solapur on 15.7.1983 whereby the said Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Gajanan Shankar Patil (Since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Madha on 23.2.1981 and consequently passed the decree for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent.

(2.) THE original plaintiff Gajanan Shankar Patil (landlord) filed the suit for eviction against Manik Ramchandra Choudhari (tenant) in the Court of Civil Judge, Madha. Both the original plaintiff and original defendant have died as stated above during the pendency of the present writ petition and are represented by the legal representatives. The suit premises consist of 20' x 15' at Kurduwadi, Taluka Madha, District Solapur. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises were let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.12.90. The standard rent of the premises was already fixed in earlier suit between the parties registered as Suit No.97 of 1968. The defendant was also liable to pay municipal tax and education cess. According to the plaintiff, since 1.3.1969, the defendant did not pay the standard rent, permitted increased and education cess upto 31.1.1974. The plaintiff issued notice dated 22.2.1974 to the defendant demanding arrears of standard rent, permitted increases, municipal tax and education cess. The said notice was served on the defendant on 26.2.1974. On 22.3.1974 the defendant deposited the entire amount of arrears of standard rent, permitted increases, municipal tax and education cess as demanded by the plaintiff. Thus, within one month from the receipt of the notice of demand, the entire arrears of standard rent, permissible increases, municipal tax and education cess stood deposited. The plaintiff despite the deposit of the arrears by the defendant as demanded by the plaintiff filed the present suit on 12.9.1974 on the grounds, namely, (i) arrears of rent from 1.3.1969 to 31.1.1974, (ii) User of the premises for immoral purposes, (iii) personal and bonafide need and (iv) non-user of the premises in question. The defendant resisted the suit filed by the plaintiff by filing written statement and averred that he deposited the entire arrears as demanded by the plaintiff within one month of the service of the demand notice and he has always been ready and willing to pay the rent to the plaintiff. The defendant also denied that plaintiff needed the premises reasonably and bonafide or that he was using the suit premises for immoral purposes or that he was not using the disputed premises. The trial Court framed 12 issues in all and after recording the evidence held that the plaintiff is entitled to receive rent at the rate of Rs.12.90 per month. The trial Court also held that the defendant had deposited the entire arrears of rent for the period 1.5.1969 to 31.3.1974 within one month of receipt of notice of demand. The trial Court also negatived the claim of the plaintiff for eviction on account of reasonable and bonafide necessity, user of the suit premises by the defendant for illegal and immoral purposes or user of the shop by the defendant. In view of the aforesaid finding, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in appeal and the appeal Court as observed above allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and granted decree for eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel, Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short "Rent Control Act").

(3.) MR . Mandlik, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the defendant deposited the entire arrears of rent, permitted increases, municipal tax and education cess within one month of the receipt of the demand notice, Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Control Act was not attracted and the appeal Court seriously erred in granting the decree for eviction on the ground under Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Control Act.