SUBHASH JANARDAN KULKARNI Vs. RAJASHREE AVINASH PARDESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these cross Petitions by the landlord and the tenant are disposed of by this common Judgement.

(2.) The suit property consists of four rooms on the ground floor of building situated at Shivaji Nagar, Sangli. It is stated that originally Satyabhama Vithal Joshi was the owner of the building in which the suit property is situated. The said Satyabhamabai by registered Gift deed bequeathed the entire property being C.S.No.151 and the building standing thereon in favour of Sadashiv Joshi, Jaydev Joshi and Smt. Sarala Yeshwant Joshi. Nonetheless Satyabhamabai alongwith Sadashiv, Jaydev and Sarala sent legal notice on 21st November, 1977 to the Respondent Rajashree Pardeshi, who is the tenant in the suit property. The said communication clearly informs the tenant that the ownership stands transferred in the names of Sadashiv, Jaydev and Sarala in view of the registered Gift deed executed by Satyabhamabai and that the tenant was obliged to pay rent in respect of suit property to them. It is also noted in this communication that the Respondent tenant was monthly tenant in relation to the suit property on monthly rent of Rs.165/- plus Rs.50/- and was in default for several years. It is then noted that the outstanding amount payable by the tenant was Rs.1,345/-. In addition, the tenant was liable to pay towards water and electricity charges. The amount payable under that head however, is not specified and left blank. The communication calls upon the tenant to pay the outstanding dues within 15 days from the receipt of the said legal notice and also to vacate the suit premises as tenancy stands terminated with effect from 31st December, 1977.

(3.) Once again the tenant reiterated the same position, as asserted in the earlier reply. In addition, it is stated that the tenant had paid Rs.19,000/- towards earnest money for purchasing the suit property and was occupying the same as part performance of the said agreement. With regard to the liability to pay amount towards standard rent, it is stated that since there was no direction issued by the concerned Court to pay interim standard rent amount, question of paying any amount or depositing any amount in court did not arise. In substance, the Tenant refuted the claim of the owners not only regarding demand made towards arrears of rent but also to hand over vacant and peaceful possession. Although the above said two legal notices were issued, the owners did not institute any suit for possession. However, suit for possession has been instituted in respect of the suit property against the tenant by one Subhash J. Kulkarni. The said Subhash J.Kulkarni has filed suit for possession in the capacity of Court Receiver. He has been appointed as Court Receiver in Suit filed by Sadashiv, Jaydev and Sarla against five tenants being RCS No.174 of 1980. Here it may be relevant to refer to the said proceedings only to indicate as to the background in which the Plaintiff Subhash Kulkarni instituted suit against the tenants for possession on the ground of default on the basis of legal notice referred to above in respect of the owners of the property. The said suit being RCS No.174 of 1980 is filed by the persons who claim to have become owners on account of the Registered Gift Deed. It is stated by them that the property C.S.No.151 is being waisted and damaged. It is stated that as the Plaintiffs were residents of Mumbai, behind their back, the Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 in the said suit, namely, Krishna Joshi, Makarand Joshi and Arvind Joshi, forcibly entered into tenements on the ground floor and later on inducted Defendant No.1 Shailaja Dhamke and Defendant No.2 Madhuri Dhamake illegally and without the knowledge or permission of the owners. The owners have also asserted in the said suit that they apprehended that the Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 would create obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of the property bearing CS No.151. On this assertion the owners prayed for following relief in the said suit: