JUDGMENT - V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. :---By this revision, applicant-original defendant challenges judgment and decree passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur decreeing the plaintiffs suit and passing a money decree for Rs. 1,100/- as arrears of rent from 1-4-1986 to 30-11-1986 at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month and also for Rs. 50/- as notice charges.

2. Originally, a civil suit came to be filed by 4 plaintiffs, who claimed that they had purchased the suit house from one Jagdishchandra. It was their contention that all the plaintiffs had jointly purchased the suit house by a sale-deed dated 18-12-1981. They contended that defendant Rambhau was occupying a portion of the said house as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. It was their case that Rambhau who was occupying a portion of the suit house had paid rent for only one month to them after he was informed about the change in ownership and that was for the month of January, 1981. They claimed that thereafter the tenant did not pay rent and had fallen in arrears of the same. A decree for Rs. 1,100/- on that count was claimed in the suit. Originally suit was for ejectment, damages and notice charges. However, subsequently, claim for ejectment was withdrawn and the suit remained in respect of claim of arrears of rent only. This claim was opposed by the defendant, who raised number of pleas in the written statement. Pre-dominantly his case was that the plaintiffs were not the owners at all. There is a diabolic plea in respect of this payment of rent for the month of January, 1981. As regards ownership of the plaintiffs, though in para 5 there is admission of ownership, subsequently defendant gave a long history that the present plaintiffs had got the property transferred from the erstwhile owner Jagdishchandra and in fact since the amount was borrowed from the defendant for the construction of the house, he had a charge in that house and the said charge continued so far as the said amount was not made good to the defendant. In short, this was completely confused plea, wherein defendant had not either bothered to deny the title or to assert his own title. During the pendency of this suit, on 7-12-1982, plaintiffs made an application under the provisions of section 151 directing the tenant to make payment of the accumulated rent as also directing him to continue the payment of rent in the Court. This application was replied to by the tenant by his reply dated 24-2-1983 and ultimately order came to be passed on 17-3-1983 by the Court directing the tenant to pay the rent by 11-4-1983. The defendant then filed a review application on 28-4-1983 but that review application was also dismissed on 1-8-1983. In short, till that stage atleast, the defendant was directed to make the payment of the accumulated arrears of rent.

3. Thereafter the suit took a new turn in asmuch as plaintiff thereafter filed application on 23-7-1983, by which application plaintiff prayed for striking off the defence of the defendant as he had failed to comply with the order passed by the Court on 17-3-1983. Indeed, the defendant had not complied with the order and he could not make any effective defence to the application for striking off the defence, which application was served upon him and when the said application was being decided, defendant was even heard. Ultimately, the application came to be allowed and the defence was ordered to be struck off on 6-8-1984. Even then the defendant did not come out of his slumber and instead of challenging it before the proper forum filed an application for restoration of defence on 3-2-1987 (Exh. 43) i.e. after about 3 years of striking off the defence order was passed. Again the said application met the same fate i.e. it was dismissed on 10-3-1987. Thereafter it seems that the Court proceeded to record the evidence of the plaintiff and ultimately passed the judgment on 1-11-1991 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. It is this judgment, which is under challeng

Click Here to Read the rest of this document