JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA. J.:---By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the judgment and decree passed by the IVth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 1282 of 1973 on 28th June, 1979 and judgment and decree passed by the Extra Assistant Judge of Solapur on 7th April, 1981 in Civil Appeal No. 368 of 1979.

2. The crucial facts required to be stated for disposal of this petition are as under :-

(a) The petitioner was the tenant of the suit premises since the year 1959. The contractual rent of the suit premises was Rs. 11/- per month. Arifulasha Kadari Dargah Trust is the landlord of the property bearing Municipal house No. 352 at Begum Peth, Solapur. The petitioner carries on tailoring business in the shop premises in question.

(b) The petitioner did not pay rent for the period commencing from 1st January, 1970. On 5th November, 1973, the landlord Trust issued a notice to the petitioner under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act) demanding arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1st January, 1970. The said arrears amounted to Rs. 517/-. The said notice was duly received by the petitioner on 8th November, 1973. The petitioner did not tender any amount to the landlord and the said notice remained uncomplied with. The petitioner did not file any application for fixation of the standard rent within one month after service of the said notice as contemplated under Explanation I to section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner sent a reply to the said notice on 6th December, 1973.

(c) On 15th December, 1973, the landlord Trust filed Civil Suit No. 1282 of 1973 for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on various grounds. None of these grounds is now relevant except the ground of alleged default in respect of payment of rent within the notice period.

3. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner incurred liability to be evicted from the suit premises under section 12(3)(a) of the Act as the petitioner was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months from the date of the notice and the notice of demand was not complied with. It was the contention of the respondents before the Court below that the petitioner was bound to raise the dispute regarding fixation of standard rent, if any, by filing an application within a period of one month from receipt of the said notice and that was the only mode by which such dispute could be raised if the petitioner desired to avail of the statutory presumption of readiness and willingness to pay the amount of rent within the contemplation of Explanation I to section 12 of the Act. The respondents also contended before the courts below that even if section 12(3)(b) of the Act were to be held applicable, the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of the Act under the said provision as the petitioner had not paid the amount of rent due and payable by the petitioner at the first hearing of the suit within the contemplation of section 12(3)(b) of the said Act. It is contended that the petitioner tenant was not ready and willing to pay rent in respect of the suit premises and the petitioner was a' defaulter' in this respect.

4. It emerges from the record that issues in the suit were settled on 7th June, 1974 and the petitioner made the first deposit of rent in the trial Court only on 19th July, 1978.

5. The petitioner alleged before the courts below that the petitioner had made payment of Rs. 66/- and Rs. 132/- towards rent for which the landlord had failed to give credit. The petitioner failed to prove the said allegations. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below have become final. The said findings are not shown to be perverse.

6. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court held in terms that section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act was clearly attracted to the facts of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document