SHRIMANTRAO MALOJIRAO KHARATMAL Vs. BHIVA LAXMAN GAINDHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order dated 26.4.1984 passed by the V Extra Assistant Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No.385/1982. That appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1982 passed by the V Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur. That civil Suit was filed by the present respondent claiming therein that he is owner of House No.552, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur and that the petitioner is his tenant in those premises. The landlord sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on several grounds including the one that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. The trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the landlord holding that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay rent and passed a decree of eviction against the tenant directing the tenant to vacate the suit premises. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were confirmed. Thus, it is the judgments of both the Courts below which are challenged in this petition.

(2.) THE undisputed position before me is that a notice dated 1.7.1977 was issued by the landlord under Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act demanding arrears of rent from 16.9.1975 to 15.8.1977. The landlord had claimed rent at the rate of Rs.7.00 per month and permitted increases at the rate of Rs.3.00 per month. The further admitted position before me is that within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this demand notice, the tenant paid an amount of Rs.168.00 to the landlord which represented rent at the rate of Rs.7/p.m. for a period of 24 months. It is also undisputed before me that the tenant by giving reply to the notice within one month disputed his liability to pay the permitted increases at the rate Rs.3.00 p.m. On the basis of this admitted position, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the trial court has recorded a finding in paragraph 18 of its order that the only dispute between the parties so far as the rent and permitted increases is concerned, was regarding the amount of permitted increases. The tenant was disputing his liability to pay permitted increases at the rate demanded by the landlord. The trial Court has further held that the plaintiff has led no evidence in that regard and therefore the trial court recorded a finding that the standard rent of the premises was Rs.7.00 p.m. Thus in the submission of the learned counsel the demand of the landlord of Rs.3.00p.m. as permitted increases was rejected by the Trial Court. Admittedly there was no cross-objection filed by the landlord before the appellate court nor has be challenged that finding at the hearing of the appeal. In the submission of the learned counsel, therefore, by paying the monthly rent which was due from him and was demanded by the notice issued under sub-section 12 of the Act within one month, the demand notice was complied with and therefore no suit could be instituted against the petitioner on the basis of that demand notice.

(3.) IN the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.