MOHANDEVI SHARDA Vs. CHANDULAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below holding that the petitioner landlord is not entitled to a decree of eviction against the tenant. R.A.E. Suit No. 55/416 of 1966 was filed by the petitioner claiming to be owner of Block No.2, situated on the ground floor of his building standing on plot No.48, Chittaranjan Road, Vile Parle, Bombay 57. It was further claimed that the respondent is a tenant in the said premises. the landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent and that the tenant has acquired suitable residence. The ground of suitable residence, however, was given up and therefore the only ground that was considered was whether the landlord establishes that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. The Trial Court recorded the finding against the landlord and dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the landlord, the Appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. In this petition, the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are challenged.

(2.) THE perusal of the record reveals that before the landlord issued a demand notice to the tenant, the tenant had filed R.A.E. No. 389/SR of 1965 on 13th March 1965 for fixation of standard rent and in that application, by order dated 13th January 1966, the Court had fixed Rs.115/- as the interim standard rent. Both the Courts have found that the tenant has regularly deposited the arrears of rent and the interim standard rent regularly in court and therefore, both the Courts have found that the decree of eviction cannot be passed against the tenant ether under section 12(3)(a) or 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. It appears that it was the case of the tenant that the standard rent application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 30th June 1975. By that order, it was held that the contractual rent of Rs.136/- p.m. is not excessive and therefore, according to the landlord, the tenant was liable to deposit the amount of difference between the contractual rent of Rs.136/- p.m. and the interim rent of Rs.115/- p.m. in the Court. According to the landlord, as the difference in amount is not deposited, the landlord become entitled for decree of eviction against the tenant. It is clear that the Appellate Court has examined this aspect of the matter and has held that as the Trial Court had not issued any direction to the tenant to deposit the difference in Court and as the tenant had challenged the order passed by the Trial Court on standard rent application, it cannot be said that the tenant was at fault in not depositing the amount of difference. It is further to be seen here that in the revision filed by the tenant against the order passed in standard rent application, the appellate Court, while dismissing the revision, directed the tenant to deposit the difference in the amount of standard rent and interim rent within two months from the date of the order. It is nobody's case before me that the tenant has not complied with that order. In these circumstances therefore, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the orders impugned in this petitioner. The orders impugned in the petition are concurrent and I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Courts below.