When part of any tenanted premises are sold away to the tenants, the previous amount of rent cannot continue to be legally payable for the portion that remains with the tenants as lessees, unless the parties confirmed it by express or implied contract. Proportionate abatement must follow.

JUDGMENT - S.N. KHATRI, J.:---The IInd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalgaon, passed a decree in favour of the present petitioner (hereinafter, 'landlords') for eviction of the respondents (hereinafter, 'tenants') under section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act (for short, "the Act") on the ground that the latter had erected a permanent structure on the suit premises without the permission of the landlords in writing. A decree for Rs. 380/- for arrears of rent and mesne profit was also passed. In appeal preferred by the tenants, the District Court reversed the trial Court's decree and dismissed the suit. Now the landlords have come up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the District Court decree.

2. The material facts that are no longer in dispute before me are these : There are in all 4 shops abutting a public road in Jalgaon town. There is common godown adjoining all these four shops in the South. Originally the tenants were holding the western two shops and the entire godown as month to month tenants. The rent per month was Rs. 45/-. On 25th February, 1966, the landlords sold the entire godown to the tenants by a registered sale-deed and put them in possession thereof as vendees. On the same day, petitioner No. 2 Shriram Ramgopal Agrawal who was at the material time the Karta of the joint family of the landlords, entered into an agreement with the tenants agreeing to sell all the 4 shops, including the two rented out to the tenants.

3. As the landlords did not execute a registered conveyance pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the tenants instituted Spl. Civil Suit No. 8 of 1967 against the landlords in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jalgaon for specific performance of the agreement. This suit came to be dismissed on 11th September, 1968 on the ground that the agreement entered into by the Karta on behalf of the joint family was not supported by legal necessity. The tenants carried an appeal from this decision to this Court which also came to be dismissed in November 1977. During the course of the hearing of this petition Shri Page for the tenants has informed the Court that they have approached the Supreme Court and their petition for Special Leave to appeal is pending in that Court.

4. During the pendency of the aforesaid litigation, the landlord issued a quit notice to the tenants Exh. 29 on 9th September, 1971 demanding arrears of rent for 58 months from 1st November, 1966 to 31st August, 1971. The landlords also made a grievance that the tenants had erected permanent structures on the tenanted premises without their permission in writing. On these twin grounds, the landlords claim possession of the premises. Here it may be made clear that the premises as indicated in this notice are the two shops and the godown behind them. The rent was also demanded at the initial rate of Rs. 45/- per month meant for the two shops as well as the entire godown.

5. The tenants by their reply dated 22nd September, 1971 Exh. 32 brought it to the notice of the landlords that after the sale of the godown in their favour, rent for the two shops as such, was not any time fixed by contact between the parties. According to them, the proportionate rent for the two shops premises could not exceed Rs. 20/-. They contended that a sum of Rs. 2483/- was due to them from the landlords on account of the price of goods sold to them and that in accordance with the old practice, this amount was liable to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent if any, claimable by the landlords. According to the tenants, on proper accounting @ Rs. 20/- p.m. which would be the maximum rent for the two shops, nothing would be found due from them to the landlords. The tenants candidly admitted to have made certain temporary alternations in the premises. They justified these works on the ground that they were by way of repairs and undertaken by them as prospective purchasers. They resisted the landlord's claim for evic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document