MAHALINGAYYA S HUNSHALMATH Vs. ANANT S NIFADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree passed by 8th Addl. District Judge, Pune on 8-11-89 affirming the judgment and decree for eviction passed by the 4th Addl. Small Causes Court, Pune. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the decree for eviction passed by the courts below on the ground of default under Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Control Act) is justified or not.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for consideration of the said question are : Shri Anant S. Nifadkar, respondent herein is the landlord in respect of 3 rooms on the second floor in house No. 697, Kasba Peth, Pune which was let out to Shri Mahalingayya S. Hunshalmath, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives. According to the landlord, the said premises were let out to the tenant for the rent of Rs. 33. 50 ps. per month. The tenant, it is alleged by the landlord, committed default in payment of rent and for the period from 1st August, 1981 upto 31st May, 1985, the rent fell due. The landlord sent a notice to the tenant on 8th April, 1985 demanding arrears of rent and his vacation from the premises in question. The said notice was received by the tenant on 12th April, 1985. The landlord then filed the suit for eviction. The suit was contested by the tenant and he denied the landlords allegation and that was defaulter. The tenant set up the plea that notice dated 8th April, 1985 was received by him on 12th April, 1985 and as the Civil Court was closed for Summer Vacation from 29th April, 1985 to 2nd June, 1985, on reopening of the Court i. e. on 3rd June, 1985, he made an application for fixation of the standard rent. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court by his order dated 10th June, 1985, fixed the interim rent at Rs. 25/- per month and directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent within one month from that order. The tenant deposited Rs. 1600/- on 26th June, 1985 in Court and since no rent remained outstanding, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THE application for fixation of the standard rent and the suit were disposed of by the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 20th January, 1988. The trial Court held that tenant was defaulter and since he did not comply with the provisions of section 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, he was liable to be evicted. The tenant carried the matter in appeal unsuccessfully.