DEOKUMARI Vs. RAMKHILAWAN JAGDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for decision in Writ Petition No. 190 of 1982 which is the main petition is whether the payments of monthly rent or monthly compensation made by the tenant satisfies the testes of reasonable punctuality laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of (Mohan Laxman Hede) 1988 Maharashtra Rent Control Journal, Page 313 : 1988(3) Bom.C.R. 260 or whether the petitioner is such a recalcitrant tenant that he cannot avail of the extended protection given to tenants in general by the said judgment.

(2.) The relevant facts, about which there is no dispute, are as follows :-

(3.) As pointed out by Mr. Vakil, even during the pendency of this petition the rent or compensation, whatever we may call it, was not deposited by the petitioners/tenants in the Court, as per the direction of this Court. The certified copy of the entire payment sheet is placed before me by Mr. Vakil. From the payment-sheet, it is clear that on 01-05-1981 a sum of Rs. 1830/- was deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, rent is deposited at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month (not at the rate of Rs. 128/- p.m.) till 16-01-1982. On 16-01-1982 a sum of Rs. 30/- is paid which is probably the rent payable for the month of December 1981. Rule was issued by this Court in this petition on 30th January, 1982. At the time of the grant of the Rule, a condition was put that the rent should be paid for the period beginning from January 1982 at the rate of Rs. 128/- p.m. No direction was given by this Court for depositing the arrears of rent, to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 128/- p.m. This direction of this Court has been complied with by the petitioners from 17-2-1982 till 19-10-1982. On 19-10-1982, probably, the rent for the month of October, is not paid at all. The next payment of Rs. 128/- is on 20-12-1982. If this accounts for the payment of rent for October 1982, it follows that the rent for the month of November 1982 is not paid at all. Thereafter, we find that on 20-4-1983 a sum of Rs. 128/- is paid. The rent for the month of November 1982 still remained unpaid. The next payment is on 8-6-1983. This means that the rent for the month of April 1983 is additionally in arrears. On 22-6-1983 another payment of Rs. 128/- is made. This might account for the payment of rent for May 1983. But the rent for November 1982 did remain un-paid on that date. Thereafter, we find that a sum of Rs. 128/- is paid in July 1983. But in August 1983 no amount is paid. An amount of Rs. 128/- is paid on 22-11-1983, meaning thereby, the amount for October 1983 is not paid. On 16-8-1984 we find that a lumpsum payment of Rs. 256/- is made and on 18-8-1984 a further lumpsum payment of Rs. 1152/- is made. Thereafter we find that on 12-11-1984 another lumpsum payment of Rs. 256/- is made. Then we find that for the month of June 1985 the payment is not made and a lumpsum payment is made on 5-7-1985. Thereafter, we find from October 1985 till July 1986 no amount is paid at all for the full period of 8 months. On 2-7-1986 a lumpsum payment of Rs. 1024/- is made. Once again from 17-7-1986 till 6-3-1987 nothing is paid and on 6-3-1987 a sum of Rs. 640/- and on 29-04-1987 another sum of Rs. 640/- is paid. Thereafter, for a further period of 6 months nothing is paid and on 12-10-1987 Rs. 640/- is paid. Thereafter, no payment is made till 8-4-1988 on which date a sum of Rs. 768/- is paid. Mr. Vakil has thereafter pointed out that in view of these defaults on the part of the petitioners, he had moved this Court on 7-12-1987 for appropriate orders for dismissal of the petition on the ground of non-compliance with the conditions for stay. Mr. Vakil states that on that date Mr. Tiwari appeared for the petitioners. He is the self-same Advocate who appeared for them in the trial Court. He specifially made a statement that all the arrears were paid as per the direction of this Court. This Court, therefore, gave two weeks time for verification of the position regarding payment of the arrears as per the direction of the Court. It was only thereafter that on 12-10-1987 a sum of Rs. 640/- has been deposited by the petitioners in the Court. The grievance of Mr. Vakil is that no previous notice of such payment was given to him or to his client. His contention is that this lumpsum amount could not have been accepted by the office of this Court unless permission to that effect was given by the Court to the tenant for depositing the monies after commission of the delay. Mr. Vakils grievance is that the statement made on behalf of the petitioners on 7-10-1987 to the effect that all arrears were paid by the petitioners was quite an incorrect statement and it was with the view of such statement that the stay was allowed to be continued. Even thereafter, we find that no rent is paid every month. After the payment dated 12-10-1987, the next payment, we find, is made on 8-4-1988, of a sum of Rs. 768/-.Mr. Rege, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that on 2-3-1983 a whacking amount of Rs. 25,54/- was deposited by the petitioners in the Court. But the significant part of this payment is that it is not dsposited as per the directions of any Court as such. This means that the tenant and his legal Adviser were all the time aware that the duty of the tenant was to deposit the rent of the rate of Rs. 128/- p.m., and not at the rate of mere Rs. 30/- per month. No justification has been advanced before me as to why this rent was not paid at that rate on the earlier occasion; as to why the learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Tiwari, insisted even before the trial Court that come what may, the tenant would not comply with the order or direction of the Court and would not deposit the amount as per order or direction of the Court. Even rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- p.m. has not been paid. Even the direction given by this Court to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 128/- p.m. regularly has not been complied with and the amount has fallen in arrears not for one month or two months, but has fallen in arrears, some times for 6 months and some times for 8 months and more. This ,then is the conduct of the petitioners/tenants throughout the entire litigation. They contend that the rent was only Rs. 30/- p.m. but it is an admitted fact before me that the rent has been fixed by the Court the standard rent proceedings at the rate of Rs. 128/- p.m.