LAXMINARAYAN LUNKARAM BHUTADA Vs. SITABAI PARSHURAM BANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the Order dated 4/7/86 passed by the Joint District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No.103/84. That Appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging Judgment and decree dated 25/4/83 passed by the III Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.2299/78. That Civil Suit was filed by the Respondent-Sitabai claiming to be the owner of House No.1216, Shukrawar Peth, Pune, and further claiming that the petitioner is a tenant of 2 rooms in the said house.

(2.) THE landlady sought decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that he is not ready and willing to pay the rent. The Trial Court found in favour of the landlady and decreed the suit. In the Appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal. In this petition therefore, 2 orders passed by the Subordinate courts are challenged.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before me that perusal of the Order passed by both the Courts below shows that both the Courts held that decree under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act is liable to be passed because he has not complied with the Order passed by the Court in the Standard Rent Application by which he is directed to deposit arrears of rent within 1 month from 6/4/79. The learned Counsel submitted the explanation No.1 appearing below Section 12 lays down that where a tenant after receiving Notice issued under Sub Section 2 of Section 12 makes an application for fixation of standard rent and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent specified in the order of the Court, it will be presumed that he is ready and willing to pay the rent. The learned Counsel submitted that in case of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the rent within the time allowed by the Court, the presumption raised by explanation No.1 could not operate in favour of the tenant. However, as standard rent application filed by him remains pending, decree under Section 12(3)(a) cannot be passed against the tenant. Therefore, Court will have to examine the case under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act, that provision requires that the tenant should deposit arrears of rent on or before 1st date of hearing and continue to deposit the amount of monthly rent regularly. The learned Counsel further submitted that on 13/8/79 tenant has admittedly deposited amount of Rs.1039.50 which was more than amount of arrears of rent at the rate of 15/- p.m. which was the standard rent at the relevant time. The learned Counsel further submitted that it is nobodies case that the petitioner is not regular in making deposit in the Court.