VALLABHJI SALJI SHAH Vs. GOPAL SAVLARAM RAJADHYAKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenants petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 24th December 1985 passed by the 6th Addl. District Judge, Thane, whereby the order of dismissal of suit passed by the trial Court was reversed and eviction of the tenant was ordered.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under : petitioner is the monthly tenant of respondent No. 1 in respect of a single room on the ground floor of the building known as Vrindavan Bldg. No. 2 situated at Ram Maruti Road, Thane. Respondent No. 1-landlady filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 483 of 1978 against the petitioner for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. Respondent No. 1 averred that the petitioner had failed to pay the rent of Rs. 15/- per month plus Government education cess, Municipal education cess, employment guarantee cess and tree cess all fixed at Rs. 2. 50 per month and sanitary charges of Rs. 2. 50 per month and water charges of Rs. 5/- per month. Respondent No. 1 further averred that the petitioner was not ready and willing to pay the monthly rent and cess and charges to the landlady and he was in arrears from last March 1976 to 31st December 1977 and that a sum of Rs. 550/- was due and payable by the petitioner to the landlady as arrears of rent, cess, sanitary charges, and water charges. It was further stated that by notice dated 10th January 1978, the landlady terminated the tenancy of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises in the month of January 1978 and called upon him to deliver possession of the suit premises by the end of the month of February 1978 and to pay the arrears of rent and other charges. It was stated that within one month the entire arrears were not tendered, but only a money order of Rs. 195/- was sent by the petitioner which was accepted by the landlady. According to the landlady since the petitioner failed to raise a dispute of standard rent within one month or to tender the entire arrears in the said period, he is liable to be evicted.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the petitioner-tenant by his written statement at Exh. 13. The petitioner contended that the estimate for permitted increases was not legal and proper and the same was excessive and illegal. The petitioner further contended that the water charges and sanitary charges claimed by the landlady did not form part of the rent and as such the alleged claim at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month was incorrect and illegal. He claimed that he was always ready and willing to pay the rent of the suit premises. That he had approached the landlady on several occasions to tender the rent, but with a view to create a ground for eviction of the petitioner, she refused to accept the rent. He also contended that the notice of demand was bad-in-law inasmuch as the demand of arrears of rent made therein was excessive and exorbitant. He also contended that the rent claimed by the landlady was not the standard rent of the suit premises and the same was highly excessive and exorbitant as the standard rent of the suit premises could not exceed Rs. 6/- per month.