Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.V. Savant, J.
Vasant Parsuram Sane.... Petitioner.
Versus
Kamlakar Gajanan Chevade and another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 5964 of 1986, decided on 7-7-1994.
Advocates appeared :
S.G. Surana with A.G. Prabhu, for petitioner.
P.M. Pradhan, for the respondents.
Held, unfortunately there are no pleadings on record in that behalf.
Subletting was not one of the grounds on which eviction was sought in the courts below. The petition which has been pending in this Court since 19,6 has not been amended. Shri Pradhan no doubt contended that the Supreme Court has all along taken a view that in proceedings for reasonable and bona fide requirement or for eviction on certain grounds under the Rent Act, if subsequent events having a bearing on that ground viz., the ground alleged in the suit, come to the notice of Court during the pendency of the proceedings, such subsequent events be taken into account so that the relief can be concluded in the light of the subsequent events.
It is one thing to say that if a ground of default is alleged in the original proceedings, a subsequent events having a bearing on that ground can be taken into accounts.
What is alleged before me is, only an oral submission. It is however, stated that in the application for fixation of this petition for hearing-early, some reference to it was made, in the affidavit filed by the respondents - landlords. I do not think, in the facts of the present case, the ratio of the decision in the case of Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu can have any application.
Section 12 (3) (b)-Payment of rent-Construction of regular payment of Tenant depositing more than interim rent fixed by Court entitled to protection under Section 12 (3) (b) of the Act, 1947.
The chart clearly shows that the tenant had not only depoited the amount regularly but at all relevant times, he had deposited the amount in excess of what he was required to deposit. The tenant was thus never in arrears of rent after the initiation of the proceedings for fixation of standard rent. As stated earlier he had initiated the proceedings within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. The judgments and decrees passed by the two courts below are, therefore, wholly erroneous in law and are contrary to the admitted position regarding the payment made by the tenant.
The tenant is c1easly entitled to the benefit of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Rent Act and no decree for eviction can be passed against him on the ground of arrears of rent in the present case.
Order 6, Rule 6.
See Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 12 (3).
2. The premises are room No. 4 which is a room in a chawl known as Tarabai Niwas behind Rationing Office, Murbad Road, Kalyan. The premises were let out to the petitioner in 1966 and the contractual rent was Rs. 40/- (Rupees forty only) per month. The petitioner had given a loan to the original landlady Tarabai, the predecessor in title of the present respondents. The said loan of Rs. 3,225/- (Three thousand two hundred twenty five only) was advanced on the 17th July, 1966 and the condition of repayment was that Rs. 20/- (Rupees twenty only) per month were to be adjusted towards the payment of rent, with the result that the petitioner - tenant was liable to pay Rs. 20/- per month plus the Education Cess till the loan of Rs. 3,225/- was adjusted. This was also the understanding recorded in the agreement dated 16th September, 1966 which is produced at Exh. 15. In accordance with this understanding at Exh. 15 the loan stood fully repaid by the end of December, 1979. During the year 1980 the petitioner sent the rent by money orders which was accepted. On 15th June, 1981 the petitioner sent a money order for Rs. 138/- towards the rent for the 6 months from January to June 1981. This was however refused by the respondents and the money order coupon is at Exh. 31. On the 14th July, 1981 the petitioner sent another money order for the month of July, 1981 which was also refused. Similar was the case for month of August, 1981. On 7th November, 1981 the petitioners money order for Rs. 92/- was also refused by the respondents and the coupon is at Exh. 33. It appears that there was some dispute as to what should be the amount of rent to be sent by the petitioner after the adjustment of the loan. This dispute resulted in the money orders being refused by the respondents landlords.
3. Be that as it may, on the 2nd November, 1981, the respondent issued the suit notice of demand under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, demanding the total amount of Rs. 665/- towards the arrears of rent from January, 1980 to October, 1981 at the rate of Rs. 40/- plus Rs. 3 towards Education Cess per month. This notice is at Exhibit 17. On the 23rd November, 1981 the petitioner sent a reply through his advocate and denied the allegations. This reply is at Exhibit 16. However the petitioner promptly filed an application for fixation of standard rent on 27th November, 1981 being Misc Application No. 105 of 1981. Thus the application for fixation of standard rent was filed within the statutory period of 30 days. The respondents filed the suit for eviction on 16th December, 1981 being Regular Civil Suit No. 565 of 1981. The ground for eviction was, principally, that the petitioner was in debt for more than 6 months. It was also alleged that the petitioner had carried out certain permanent construction and that he had committed an act contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus a decree was prayed for also on the ground of section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act as they stood at the relevant time.
4. On the 8th July, 1982 the petitioner filed a written statement at Exhibit 9 denying that he was a defaulter. He pointed out that he ha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
