HASANALLI KASAMALLI Vs. UTTAM VISHNU AGAWANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges concurrent finding recorded by the sub-ordinate Courts under the Bombay Rent Act holding that the petitioner tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. Perusal of the record reveals that the Petitioner is a tenant of the residential premises. It further reveals that he had filed an application viz. miscellaneous application No.425 of 1974 for fixation of standard rent. That application was decided and the standard rent of the suit premises was fixed. The tenant, it appears, made some deposits in those proceedings. However, since the tenant was in arrears of rent from May 1979, a notice dated 1st November 1979 was issued by the landlord to the tenant under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act demanding arrears of rent for the period from May 1979 to October 1979. The tenant sent a reply to this notice and stated that he is sending the arrears of rent. Both the Courts below therefore have held that the tenant was in arrears of rent from May 1979 to October 1979. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the tenant has not established by leading evidence that he sent arrears of rent by money order within one month of the receipt of the notice. Both the Courts have held that the decree under section 12(3) of the Act is liable to be passed against the tenant. Perusal of the record shows that the real controversy between the parties was that whether the tenant sent the amount of arrears by money order as claimed by him. Both the Courts have held that the landlord had in the witness box denied that "at any point of time, any postman had come to me with money order" and therefore the burden was with the tenant to prove that he had sent the amount of rent by money order to the tenant. Both the Courts have held that the tenant has failed to prove that he had despatched the rent by money order. Therefore, in my opinion, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.