MADAN SHANKARRAO KATIKAR Vs. ASHOK BHIKULAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 6th April 1985 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No.61/1992. That appeal was filed by the respondents, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Solapur dated 24.8.1981 in Reg. Civil Suit No.553 of 1977. That suit was filed by the petitioners claiming that they are owners of the suit premises which are occupied by the respondents as tenants. The landlords sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent and also that the landlords need the suit premises for their bonafide occupation. The trial court recorded finding against the landlord on the ground of bonafide need. However, the trial court found in favour of the landlord on the question of default committed by the tenant in payment of rent. As a result of which the suit was decreed in favour of the landlord and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the appellate court reversed the findings recorded by the trial court on the ground of default and allowed the appeal, set aside the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the suit. It may be pointed out here that there was a cross objection which was filed by the landlord challenging the findings recorded by the trial court on the ground of bonafide need. The appellate court, however, dismissed the cross objection also. In the present petition filed by the landlord, therefore, it is the order of the appellate court which is challenged.

(2.) IN so far as the ground of default is concerned, the facts necessary for considering that ground are that a notice dated 20.5.1975 was issued by the landlord to the tenant, demanding arrears of rent from 1.10.1974 to 31.4.1975. Admitted position that within one month from the receipt of notice, the tenant filed application for fixation of the standard rent. The trial court did not fix any amount as interim standard rent. However, the tenant went on depositing the amount of rent with the trial court. It may be pointed out here that the rent demanded was at the rate of Rs.25 per month. However, according to the tenant the rent was Rs.15 per month. It is also an admitted position between the parties that in the standard rent application, finally the court has fixed the standard rent at the rate of Rs.15 per month. Therefore, the only aspect that was to be enquired into was whether the tenant has complied with the notice under section 12(3)(b) of the Act. In the sense that whether, he has deposited on the first date of hearing the entire arrears of rent and has also further deposited the amount of monthly rent regularly. It is clear from the record of the case that the issues were framed by the trial court on 4.7.1979. Therefore, that was the first date of hearing. By that date, therefore, the tenant was to deposit the rent for 57 months. However, perusal of the record shows that by 19.4.1976 the tenant had deposited the amount of Rs.1245/-, which represents the rent for the 85 months. Thus on the first date of hearing the tenant had not only cleared the entire arrears of rent but he had also deposited the amount of rent for future months in advance. The record, further, reveals that thereafter, the tenant deposited the amount of Rs.1500/- upto 14.7.1981. Thus by 24.8.1981, the date on which the suit was decided, the tenant had not only deposited the amount of monthly rent well in advance, but he had also deposited an amount in excess of which he was liable to be deposited. In these facts, therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the appellate court, setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent.

(3.) IN the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.