V.M. SAINKAR Vs. DIGAMBAR DHONDOPANT TAPASVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents are owners of property situated at Mukundnagar, Poona and two rooms and kitchen were let out in the year 1963 to one Sanghvi at the monthly rent of Rs. 175/-. It is the claim of the respondents that on September 15, 1970 Sanghvi inducted the petitioner in the suit premises. According to the respondents the petitioner was a rank trespasser. On March 25, 1978 the respondents served notice on the petitioner claiming compensation for wrongful occupation from October 1, 1976 to July 30, 1978. The notice also asserts that the petitioner is trespasser and has no right to remain in occupation. The notice was served on the petitioner on March 27, 1978. The petitioner within one month of receipt of notice sent reply on April 24, 1978 claiming that the petitioner is tenant of the suit premises. The petitioner also filed Miscellaneous Application for determination of standard rent in the Court of Small Causes at Poona An April 24, 1978 itself. The trial Judge in the application for standard rent fixed interim rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- on June 5, 1978 and directed the petitioner to deposit the entire arrears at that rate within one month. On July 4, 1978, the petitioner deposited Rs. 2,750/- which would cover the entire arrears at the rate of Rs. 125/-.

(2.) THE respondents instituted suit in the Court of Small Causes at Poona on August 29, 1978 against the petitioner for recovery of possession. The suit claims that the petitioner is trespasser and not tenant. Thereafter, the possession is sought on the ground that the premises are required reasonably and bonafide for personal occupation, that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent and the conduct of the petitioner amounts to nuisance and annoyance. The petitioner resisted the suit by claiming that Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in case the respondents claim that the petitioner is trespasser. Thereafter, on November 25, 1983, the respondents filed pursis (Exhibit 36) and amended the pleadings accepting that the petitioner is tenant. The trial Court then recorded evidence and decreed the suit holding that the petitioner was in default for more than six months and though the application was filed for termination of standard rent within one month the requirement of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act were not complied with. The trial Court also held in favour of the landlords on the ground the tenant had committed acts amounting to nuisance. In appeal preferred by the petitioner before the District Court, the 6th Additional District Judge, Poona by judgment dated November 8, 1985 confirmed the decree of eviction on the ground of default, but reversed the finding of the trial Court on the issue of nuisance. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Reis, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlords, submitted that after July 7, 1978 the payment was not made regularly and in support of the submission reliance is placed only on observations made by the appeal Court that the tenant had admitted in cross-examination that interim rent was not deposited regularly. I inquired from the learned counsel to substantiate the assertion and Shri Reis very fairly stated that he could not do so. On the other hand Smt. Agarwal pointed out that the tenant went on depositing moneys from time to time. In these circumstances it is impossible to uphold decree of eviction on the ground of default.