ANANDRAO GANPATRAO SABLE Vs. MADHAVRAO RAMRAO KANASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Satara on 26th April, 1988 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 257 of 1987 whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the III Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, in Regular Civil Suit No. 167 of 1986 whereby he had decreed the plaintiffs-landlords suit for ejectment of the defendant-defendant-tenant. Writ Petition No. 3617 of 1988 has been filed by the original defendant-tenant while Writ Petition No. 3692 of 1988 has been filed by the original plaintiffs-landlords.

(2.) The facts necessary for the decision of those writ petitions may be briefly stated thus : The suit premises bearing C.T.S Nos. 9-A and 9-B situate in Guruwar Peth of Satara City. They were occupied by the tenant Anandrao Ganpatrao Sable on monthly rent of Rs. 50 and education cess of Rs. 1.25 Those premises were purchased by the original plaintiffs i.e. Madhavrao Ramrao Kanase and the brother Shivaraj Ramrao Kanase in the year 1982 and since then they became the landlords in respect of those premises. The plaintiffs issued a notice dated 10th December, 1986 alleging that the tenant was in arrears of rent from August 1983 to November 1985 and thus he was a defaulter in payment of rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act". The plaintiffs, on the averments that the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent though demanded by the plaintiffs by the said notice, claimed possession of the suit premises under Clause 3(a) of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. They also claimed possession of the suit premises on the ground that they required the suit premises for their occupation under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The defendant by his written statement opposing the claim of the plaintiffs denied that he defaulted any payment of rent for a period of six months and as such was liable to be evicted under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay rent Act. He also denied that he refused to receive the notice allegedly sent by the plaintiffs. He also denied that the suit premises were bona fide required by the plaintiffs for their occupation and they could claim possession thereof on that ground. He submitted that he had paid municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 376.73 on 23rd January, 1985 and that the plaintiff did not deduct that amount out of their claim for arrears of rent and as such their demand for the arrears of rent was not legal. Thus, according to him, there was no valid notice of demand as required by section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. With those averments the defendant denied the plaintiffs claim. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Satara, raised also the following issues:-

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge, the defendant preferred an appeal to the District Court, Satara and the learned Additional District Judge, Satara, by his judgment and other dated 26th April, 1988 confirmed all the findings recorded by the trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, have filed Writ Petition No. 3617 of 1988 and the plaintiffs have filed Writ Petition No. 3692 of 1988. The writ petition of the plaintiffs is directed against the finding that only a portion of the suit premises should be delivered in their possession. According to them, even on the ground of bona fide occupation they are entitled to possession of the whole of the premises and not only part of the premises as held by the Courts below.