GANPAT KRUSHANAJI JADHAV Vs. HANSABAI MADHAVRAO KANDE DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit premises are located in Somwar Peth, within the city limits of Pune, and the initial tenement in occupation of the present respondent-tenant comprised of two rooms, a small verandah and an attic. The landlord resides in the same building though on the first floor. On the earlier occasion in the year 1965, suit for eviction was filed by the landlord against the tenant which came to be compromised in the year 1969 under which the tenant had surrendered one room and thus remained in possession of only one room with a small verandah and the attic and the rental was correspondingly reduced under the compromise. It is in the year 1971 that the landlord once again filed a suit on the ground of rental arrears and also personal and bonafide requirement contending that the tenant has been in arrears for more than six months and did not clear the same within one month and thus was liable under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Rent Act) and also on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act. The suit was resisted by the respondent-tenant on all counts.

(2.) THE trial Court decreed the suit on both counts. An appeal was preferred by the tenant in the District Court at Pune against that decree. Some money-order receipts were produced at the appellate stage along with certain other documents and the learned District Judge in charge of the appeal remanded the matter to the trial Court decide afresh on considering the said comments. This order of remand was challenged in this Court when the parties agreed that the said documents may be read in evidence in appeal remanded the matter to the trial Court and, therefore, by consent the said petition was allowed and the order of remand was set aside and the District Court was directed to hear the appeal on merits taking into account the said documents which were produced at the appellate stage as having been duly proved. It is in that ground of litigation that the appeal was heard on merits and the District Court disagreed with all the findings of the trial Court holding that the notice issued by the landlord was not valid; that the tenant was not in arrears for more than six months; that the requirement of the landlord of the suit premises was not genuine. In keeping with these findings, the District Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial Court's decree and dismissed the landlord's suit in its entirety. That decree is placed under challenged in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution on behalf of the landlord.

(3.) ONLY a few aspects would be sufficient to establish the utter unsustainability of the landlord's suit. As stated initially, the respondent was in possession of two rooms, a small verandah and an attic and the rental was claimed at the rate of Rs. 21/- per month. The landlord filed earlier, Suit No. 1538 of 1965 claiming rental arrears from 1st May, 1965 to 1st of November, 1965 at the rate of Rs. 21/- along with the educational cess the total being Rs. 136/-. Misc. Application No. 615 of 1965 was filed by the tenant when the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 15/- and thereby the tenant would have been in arrears for Rs. 90/- only. It is claimed that out of the amount, Rs. 54/- have been paid by the tenant. That suit came to be compromised on 27th January, 1969 under which the tenant surrendered one room and thereby remaining in possession of only one room and an attic and the rental was reduced to Rs. 10/-. The notice of the second suit was issued on 3rd of August, 1970 under which rental arrears were claimed from 1st May, 1965 to 1st of November, 1965 to the tune of Rs. 90/- out of which Rs. 54/- were paid and thus balance of Rs. 36/- was claimed. In addition, education cess of Rs. 18.50 was claimed. Similarly, a further amount of Rs. 170/- towards the rent due between 1st of March, 1969 to 31st July, 1970 was claimed as costs awarded in the earlier revision. That in how nearly Rs. 250.70 were claimed in the notice. According to the plaintiff, the amount was not paid and therefore the present Suit No. 613 of 1971 was filed in the Small Causes Court making all these claims, though, in addition, a claim under Section 13(1)(a) of reasonable and bonafide requirement was also included.