KRISHNAJI VAGHU Vs. GOVIND GOPALKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Raigad, Alibag dat ed 3rd January, 1994 in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1989. By this Judgment, the Appellat e Court allowed the Appeal preferred by the landlord and decreed the Suit for possession filed by the landlord on the ground that the Petitioner/tenant had committed default within the meaning of Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rat es (Control) Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) PRESENT Petition raises limited controversy as to whether the conclusion reached by the Appellat e Court on this aspect is appropriat e. To appreciat e the controversy, the reference can be made to the admitted facts. It is admitted position that suit notice was issued on 2nd October, 1985 demanding arrears of rent for the period between February, 1985 to September, 1985. It is asserted in the suit notice that the tenancy creat ed in favour of the Petitioners' predecessor was monthly tenancy and the rent of Rs. 35/- (Rupees Thirty Five) was payable on monthly basis. It is not in dispute that the demand notice was received by the predecessor of the Petitioners (tenant) on 7th October, 1985. The tenant did not remit the amount as demanded in the suit notice nor filed the applicat ion for standard rent disputing his liability to pay the amount of rent as demanded by the Respondent/landlord within the stat utory period. As a result, the landlord was left with no option but to institute suit for possession.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners, however, contends that the suit notice was issued on 2nd October, 1985 and the tenancy was terminat ed by the said suit notice with effect from 3rd October. 1985. In other words, notice as issued was not in compliance with the stat utory requirement within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act. It is not possible to countenance this submission for the simple reason that it is admitted position that after notice was sent on 2nd October. 1985, the same was duly served on the tenant on 7th October, 1985 and the landlord proceeded to file the Suit only on 7th December, 1985. It is the decree passed by the Rent Court which results in terminat ion of the tenancy and not the stand taken by the Plaintiff in the suit notice. Thus understood, there is no substance in this contention.