RAMESH NARAYAN MAHAJAN Vs. HARI GANESH PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner tenant is challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below holding that the petitioner was a defaulter and liable to be evicted in accordance with provisions of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act"). The facts leading to passing of this decree are not in dispute.

(2.) THE petitioner tenant is in possession of two rooms and the standard rent was determined at the rate of Rs. 9.92 per month in the proceedings between the parties. The standard rent was determined long prior to March 11, 1978 when the landlord served notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act demanding arrears of rent from March 1, 1977 to February 28, 1978. The rent was demanded at the rate of Rs. 10.71 and this figure was settled as the standard rent was Rs. 9.92 and 79 paise were due towards permitted increases which the landlord is entitled to claim under the provisions of the Rent Act. The tenant did not send any amount within the period of 30 days nor did he raise any dispute about the quantum of rent demanded and thereupon the landlord instituted suit on 1st August, 1978 for recovery of possession.

(3.) SHRI Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant raised three contentions to challenge the legality of the judgment. The first submission is that the tenant should have been held to be ready and willing to pay the standard rent and therefore the provisions of Section 12 are not attracted. The contention is that prior to the notice the tenant had sent the money orders and those were refused by the landlord and therefore the tenant could not be said to be one who is not ready and willing to pay. The submission cannot be accepted for more than one reason. In the first instance the readiness and willingness must be reflected by the tenant forwarding the entire arrears within period of one month from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act. The tenant in the present case did not send the rent within one month and therefore it is not open for the tenant to claim that he was ready and willing to pay rent. Secondly, the record indicates that the rent sent by the money orders on the previous occasion was not the entire rent due and therefore the landlord refused to accept the same. The tenant adopted several methods to send the amount less than what was due. The money order commission was deducted and the landlord was asked to accept the rent for a particular month without clearing entire arrears. No fault can be found for refusal of the money order by the landlord in these circumstances.