DUDHSINGH BALA CHAVAN Vs. MURTIDHAR GYANBA KUDALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the VI Additional District judge, Pune dated 8th February, 1991 in civil Appeal No. 1048/1988 confirming the judgment arid decree passed by the 7th additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune dated 17th September, 1986 in Rent Act Suit no. 1756/1985 whereby the respondent-landlord's suit for possession of the suit premises and for recovery of rent of Rs. 170/-for the period from 1-12-1982 to 30-9-1985 is allowed. Although the suit for possession was filed by the respondent-landlord on different grounds, however, the decree confirmed by the two Courts below is on the ground of arrears of rent within the meaning of section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") only.

(2.) THE brief facts for considering the controversy in the present petition are that: the suit property is situated in CTS No. 427/a/1 at Somwar Peth, Pune-11 on the Ground floor consisting of one room of two khans admeasuring 10 feet X 10 feet. The plaintiff-respondent Murlidhar Kudale is the owner of the suit premises. The petitioner-tenant was in possession of the said premises on monthly rent of Rs. 5/- plus education cess and other municipal taxes etc. The tenancy starts on first day of each month and ends at the end of same month as per British calender. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant was in arrears from 1-12-1982 for which reason the landlord issued Demand notice on 23-8-1985 calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent for the period from 1-12-1982 to 30-9-1985, total amount of Rs. 170/-at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month. Since the tenant failed to offer the said amount as demanded in the suit notice or to file standard rent application disputing the amount mentioned in the suit notice within one month from service of the said notice, the landlord instituted suit for possession against the tenant on different grounds including arrears of rent. The plaintiff as well as defendants produced oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff produced the office copy of the notice dated 23-8-1985 which was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant (Exhibit 26), Plaintiff also produced postal acknowledgment evidencing service of the said notice (Exhibit 27); counter foils of the rent receipts issued by the plaintiff to defendant-tenant and other tenants (Exhibit 23 ). Defendant produced ration card (Exhibit 45)and coupons of money order sent by him from time to time (Exhibit 30 to Exhibit 40 ). Defendant also produced copy of the letter dated 8-7-1984 (exhibit 42) which was sent by one Mahadu Babu Kadam; rent receipt for the month of August 1963 (Exhibit 43)and Receipt No. 33 dated 11-7-1982 for Rs. 10/- (Exhibit 44 ).

(3.) ACCORDING to plaintiff, he received rent in respect of suit house only upto 30-11-1982 and whenever rent was offered, receipts were duly issued to the tenant. As aforesaid, on service of Demand Notice on the tenant as the outstanding rent was not offered within one month, landlord instituted suit for possession. The defence of the tenant was that since landlord did not issue receipts inspite of payment made towards" rent paid by him, he started sending the rent of the suit premises by money order from time to time. The first of sueh money order was sent on 13-12-1983 (Exhibit 30) for a sum of Rs. 10/- and the last is dated 31-12-1985 (Exhibit 31) for rs. 120/-, The tenant has produced money order coupons (Exhibit 30 to 40) to buttress his stand thp. t he was always ready and willing to pay the amount towards rent. The said coupons produced by the tenant were as follows: date rent period mentioned in the MO. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_165_BCR3_2009Html1.htm</FRM>