A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Pune dated September 4, 1987 in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1986.

2. Briefly stated the petitioners landlords filed suit for possession against Biharilal @ C.R. Ray, who was original respondent No. 1 in this writ petition and also against respondent No. 2 herein, for recovery of possession of the suit premises on diverse grounds under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. However, this writ petition is pressed only with regard to the ground of default.

3. The facts relevant to examine the said ground of default are that the said Biharilal (since deceased) was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises bearing House No. 696, Raviwar Peth, Pune city on monthly rent of Rs. 9/-. According to the petitioners, since the tenant was in arrears for more than 6 months, demand notice was issued under section 12(2) of Bombay Rent Act, on 20-12-1980. It is not in dispute that the said notice was duly served upon the tenant. However, the tenant did not offer the rent as demanded by the said notice nor filed any application for fixation of standard rent under section 11 of Bombay Rent Act within a period of one month from the date of service of the said notice. The plaint therefore, proceeds on the assertion that the case was squarely covered under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.

4. In this suit, the respondent No. 2 herein, was impleaded as defendant No. 2 on the premise that he is unlawfully inducted as sub-tenant by the respondent No. 1 deceased Biharilal.

5. The defence taken on behalf of the defendants before the trial Court with respect to the ground of default is that the demand notice was invalid, for it included demand towards permitted increases which were payable on year to year basis and not on month to month basis; and therefore, there was no cause of action to maintain suit for possession under section 12 of the Act.

6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record and the rival contentions decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners on the ground that tenant had committed default within the meaning of section 12(3)(a) of the Act. Besides the ground of default, decree for possession was also granted on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlords. Against this decision, the original tenant Biharilal as well as the respondent No. 2 herein took up the matter in appeal before the District Court, Pune, being Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1986 and 21 of 1986 respectively. The District Court, while reversing the decree on the ground of bona fide requirement, affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondent No. 2 herein was only a family member of the original tenant-Biharilal, being his son-in-law. This finding has not been challenged before this Court and thus has become final. Insofar as the ground of default is concerned, the Appellate Court took the view that since the amount demanded towards permitted increases was not payable on month to month basis, the same could not have been included in the demand notice and for that reason the notice was invalid. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Court held that no decree for possession under section 12 of Bombay Rent Act could be passed against the tenant. The Appellate Court has also gone into the question that there can be no question of granting decree even under section 12(3)(b) of Act-since the tenant has regularly deposited the entire amount due and payable. It is this view taken by the Appellate Court which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

7. According to the petitioners, the amount demanded in the suit notice towards permitted increases was payable on month to month basis. It is contended that there was tacit understanding between the parties that the same would be payable on month to month basis; and, therefore, the demand as made wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document