MOHAMMAD RAHIMAN THANEDAR Vs. LAXMI OIL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Salvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments.

(2.) THE respondent Shri Laxmi Oil Mills is original plaintiff and owner of disputed property C.T.S. No. 25. The petitioner is Shri Mohammad Rahiman Thanedar who was the tenant to room no.15 of the said premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 8/-. The tenant is alleged to have not paid rent for the period from 1.5.1969 to 31.10.1976 along with permitted increases and, therefore, the landlord was constrained to issue notice dated 3.11.1976 demanding arrears of rent for the said period along with permitted increases, taxes, etc amounting to Rs. 828.11. The demand notice was received by the tenant on 13.11.1976. On 7.12.1976 the tenant sent a money order amounting to Rs. 724.15. The tenant remained in short fall by Rs. 103.96. Since the tenant did not make the payment of rent of entire arrears, the landlord filed a suit for eviction based on arrears of rent. The tenant filed written statement and submitted that period to 1969 he was not in arrears of rent. He had deposited an amount of Rs. 325/- in earlier Suit No. 166 of 1961 and had also deposited Rs. 161/- and therefore nothing was due and payable.

(3.) MR . Salvi, the learned counsel for the defendant conceded that in response to the demand notice the entire arrears of rent and permitted increases were not paid by the tenant within one months of receipt of the notice. Mr. Salvi admitted that in the notice dated 3.11.1976 a demand of Rs.828.11 was made by the landlord towards arrears of rent along with other permitted increased, taxes, etc., but the tenant only paid sum of Rs.724.15 and remained in default for an amount of Rs. 103.96. Mr. Salvi, the learned counsel for tenant also conceded that the two Courts below have recorded the finding of fact on the basis of available evidence on record that the amount of Rs.325/- paid by the tenant in Suit No.166 of 1961 could not be adjusted and was not covered under sections 18 and 20 of the Rent Control Act. Mr. Salvi was not in a position to demonstrate that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below that there was shortfall in payment of rent within one month of demand notice suffered from any error of law or was otherwise erroneous.