SUKHLAL CHUNILAL GHAGANI Vs. HARISH SUVARNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions arise out of two civil suits filed by the petitioners and both the suits had been tried together, therefore, both these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by common order.

(2.) THESE petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Joint Judge, Pune, dated 18th March, 1985, in Civil Appeal Nos. 450 of 1983 and 451 of 1983. These appeals were filed by the respondents in these petitions challenging the judgment and decrees passed by the 4th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Pune dated 24-9-1982 in Suit No. 224 of 1977 and Suit No. 220 of 1977. These suits were filed by the petitioners claiming to be owners of house on plot No. 428 Gultekadi Pune and further claiming that the respondents are their tenants, who have been let out the premises for residence. The landlords sought decree of eviction against the tenants mainly on the ground that the tenants are not ready and willing to pay the rent and that the tenants have made permanent alterations in the suit premises. The trial Court found in favour of the landlords on both these grounds and therefore, decreed the suits for possession in favour of the landlords and directed the tenants to vacate the suit premises. In the appeals filed by the tenants, however, Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court and allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and decrees passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suits. In these petitions by landlords, therefore, the orders passed by the Appellate Court are challenged.

(3.) IT is to be seen here that in so far as the decree passed on the ground of arrears of rent is concerned, the Court has observed that the demand notice was issued by the landlords to the tenant on 3rd November, 1976, demanding the arrears of rent from 1-4-1976. The sale deed in favour of the landlords is dated 16th November, 1976. The Appellate Court has held that the landlords were claiming their entitlement to recover the rent from 1-4-1976 on the basis of the agreement of sale and copy of that agreement of sale has never been produced on record. The Appellate Court has held that in the absence of copy of the agreement of sale being placed on record, the landlords cannot be held to be entitled to the rent from 1-4-1976. The Appellate Court has further relying on the provisions of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, held that a transferee does not become entitle to arrears of rent due before the date of transfer and therefore, the landlords could not have claimed the arrears of rent for the period before 16-11-1976.