JETHANAN BALCHAND ASUDANI Vs. DAYARAM THAWARDAS HATHIRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.10.1986 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.373/84. That appeal was filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment and decree dated

(2.) 8.1983 passed by the Additional Small Causes Court Judge, Pune in Civil Suit No.3615/73. That civil suit was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, claiming therein that they are owners of block No.8 on the second floor of the Hardwar Building, House No.815/816-H, Padamji Compound, Bhavani Peth, Pune and that the petitioner is a tenant in those premises. It was the case of the landlord that a demand notice dated 10.11.73 at Exh. 51 was issued by the landlord to the tenant, demanding arrears of rent from 14.5.1972. The landlord claimed that no payment of rent was made, within one month from the receipt of the notice, by the tenant and therefore, decree under section 12(3)(a) of the Act is liable to be passed against the tenant. The landlord also sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on other grounds. The trial Court, however, found in favour of the landlord on one ground, namely, default committed by the tenant in payment of rent and decreed the suit in favour of the landlord and directed the tenant to vacate the suit premises. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the appellate court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. In the present petition filed by the tenant-petitioner, therefore, it is the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below on the ground of default committed by the tenant in payment of rent is challenged. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before me that even before the demand notice was received by the tenant, the tenant had filed an application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act, for fixation of the standard rent and therefore, in the submission of the learned counsel decree under section 12(3)(a) of the Act cannot be passed against the tenant. The learned counsel also submitted that the tenant had deposited the amount of rent in the standard rent application as also in the civil suit and therefore, the tenant has complied with the requirements of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. In the submission of the learned counsel, therefore, decree of eviction passed against the petitioner is illegal and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IT is clear that the tenant was always paying rent to Asudomal. In his deposition, Asudomal who has been examined as witness, has clearly stated that he collected rent only till 14.5.1972. Therefore, it is clear that on the date on which the demand notice was issued, the tenant was decidedly in arrears of rent for a period of more than 6 months. Admittedly, the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent. Perusal of the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act shows that the court has no option but to pass a decree against the tenant if the landlord satisfies following conditions :-