SUMATIBAI SUNDERLAL AWALE Vs. BANUSAHEB PETER CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is tenant of premises situated on the ground floor of House No. 242 situated at Aundh Gaon in Pune District. The respondent-landlord claimed that the premises were leased out to the petitioner at the monthly rent of Rs. 25/- and the petitioner is running a cycle repairing shop in part of the premises and in the remaining portion sugar-cane juice stall. The respondent-landlord purchased the property on 7th July, 1974 from one Kalu Ranu Sonavane. The respondent then served notice dated 24th March, 1982 on the petitioner demanding possession and arrears of rent from 1st September, 1974. The notice was followed by suit instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Pune. The possession was sought on the ground o default, change of user and bonafide personal requirement.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the petitioner-tenant claiming that the contractual rent was Rs. 12/- and the entire rent was paid to the former landlord but rent receipts were not issued because of the good relations between the parties. The tenant denied change of user and the fact that the landlord required the premises bonafide. The trial Court after recording evidence held that the ground of change of user as well as bonafide requirement was not established. The trial Court further held that the agreed rent was Rs. 12/- per month plus the education less. The trial court concluded that the landlord is entitled to recovery of possession as the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than six months and has not cleared the arrears or filed application under Section 11(4) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act") for determination of standard rent within 30 days of the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act. The decree of eviction passed by the trial Judge was confirmed in appeal by 6th Addl. District Judge, Pune by judgment dated 5th December, 1987, and these judgments are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , petition fails and rule is discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.