SHANTILAL MISRILAL CHHAJED Vs. SADASHIV MURLIDHAR RATNAPARKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th January, 1981 passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Nasik (Shri J.G. Chitre), in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1987 against the Judgment and decree dated 28th August, 1978 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandgaon, in Regular Civil Suit No. 179 of 1974.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent -plaintiff owns a house bearing number 464 situate at Nandgaon District Nasik. The petitioner -defendant occupies three rooms on the western side and one room admeasuring 15'x5' on the northern side as tenant of the plaintiff -landlord. He first hired three rooms on monthly rent of Rs,27/ - and later on hired one more room on monthly rent of Rs. 13/ -. The defendant -tenant paid rent to the father of the plaintiff -landlord and after his death to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 40/ - per month. The father of the plaintiff did not issue rent receipts to the defendant. He maintained a register and obtained signature of the defendant whenever he paid rent. He died on 1st October, 1971. According to the plaintiff, after the death of his father the defendant paid Rs. 100/ - only towards rent and it was adjusted towards the arrears of rent for the months of September, October, and part of November, 1971. The amount of Rs. 20/ - out of the rent for November, 1971 and the rent for the period from December, 1971 onwards, according to the plaintiff, was not paid by the defendant. The defendant had sent to the plaintiff a money order for Rs. 35/ - in January, 1974. It was refused by the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff served the notice of demand Ex. 33, dated 7th April, 1974 on the defendant and claimed arrears of rent for the period from December, 1971 to March, 1974, amounting to Rs. 1,180/ -. The defendant on 21st May, 1974 sent a money order for Rs. 195/ - to the plaintiff. He also sent the reply Ex. 53, dated 8th May, 1974 to the notice to quit dated 8th April, 1974. In that reply he mentioned how the amount of Rs. 195/ - was due from him. According to the defendant, he was at that time in arrears of rent for the period from January, 1974 to April, 1974, amounting to Rs. 160/ -. That amount along with the amount of Rs. 35/ -, which he had already remitted by money order but the plaintiff had refused that money order, was also sent along with Rs. 160/ -, Thus the money order for the amount of Rs. 195/ - was sent. The plaintiff refused that money order.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge raised necessary issues on the pleadings of the parties and after referring them to trial he found that the petitioner -defendant -tenant was not a defaulter In payment of rent and that he was not in arrears of rent from November, 1971, He also found that the defendant paid rent up to September, 1973. He held that the standard rent of the suit premises was Rs. 28/ - per month. He also held that the respondent -plaintiff -landlord failed to prove that the suit premises were required reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. He also found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant did not use the suit premises for more than six months prior to the date of the suit for the purpose for which they were let out to him. On those findings he found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree for eviction sought by him. He, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs claim for eviction, and as regards rent he held that the standard rent of the suit premises was Rs. 15/ - and Rs. 13/ - per month. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing his claim for eviction from the suit premises and recovery of rent thereof, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Court, Nasik. It was registered as Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1978. It was heard by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Nasik, He reversed the findings of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandgaon, on the point of arrears of rent and also on the point of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises for his own use and occupation, and decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant from the suit premises.