BABURAO GANPAT DESHMUKH Vs. RAMIBAI HUKUMATRAI THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a tenant in a suit being Civil Suit No. 796 of 1973, filed by one Ramibai Hukumatrai Thakur, who was the plaintiff in the suit. Rambibai having died during the pendency of this petition, her heir and legal representative has been brought on record. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

(2.) THE abovementioned suit was filed for possession of a one-room tenement bearing House No. J/10 in Upnagar Colony at Nashik. The agreed rent of the premises was Rs. 18/- per month. The plaintiff alleged in her suit that the defendant was in the arrears of rent from 1st June, 1969 to 31st August, 1973. After giving a notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to "the Bombay Rent Act", on 18th of September, 1973, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. In the suit, possession of the premises was claimed on several grounds, two of them being available to a landlord under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned trial Judge, namely, Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik, decreed the suit on these two grounds by his judgment and order dated 30th of July, 1977. The defendant preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 330 of 1977, which was heard and dismissed by the learned District Judge, Nashik by his judgment and order dated 22nd of April, 1980. The learned District Judge, however, set aside the findings which have been recorded in favour of the plaintiff under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. Having confirmed the decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal.

(3.) REFERENCE now must be made to the proceedings, which according to Mr. Kankaria, had prevented the defendant from making the payment of the rent. Under some proceedings, the suit premises had been auctioned by the Government and the defendant having given the highest bid was declared the auction-purchaser. He deposited a sum of Rs. 4,010/- with the Government towards the purchase price of the suit premises. However, the plaintiff successfully challenged the auction sale and by the order dated 29th of March, 1972, the Collector of Nashik set aside the auction sale. The defendant, however, preferred a revision application, which came to be dismissed on 9th of July, 1974. From this it is clear that after 29th of March, 1972, the defendant has no semblance of title to the property. The notice leading to the institution of the proceedings was given by the plaintiff on 18th of September, 1973, nearly 1-1/2 years after the plaintiff had successfully god rid of the auction sale. One must also notice the fact that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1st June, 1969 to 31st of August, 1973, a period which covered the period before the auction sale and the period after the auction sale. In these circumstances, I do not see how it is possible to accept the arguments of Mr. Kankaria that the defendant was under the impression that the ownership of the property was in dispute and, therefore, he was not liable to pay the rent to the plaintiff. Since 29th March, 1972, at any rate the defendant was bound to pay the rent. The notice by the plaintiff was given on 18th of September, 1973. On this date the defendant had no semblance of the title of the property. It was obligatory upon him to meet the demand which was contained in the notice given under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, which he did not do. It is, therefore, inevitable that the two Courts below came to the conclusion that the defendant neglected to pay the arrears of rent as contemplated under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.