JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 2670 of 1986 is filed by the tenant, whereas Writ Petition No. 2325 of 1987 is filed by the landlady (For the sake for convenience parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant respectively).

2. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that originally Writ Petition No. 2670 of 1986 was filed jointly by Kantilal Ravji Mehta and Harshad Kantilal Mehta. However, Kantilal Ravji Mehta died during the pendency of the writ petition and since no steps were taken, writ petition as against him (petitioner No. 1) has been dismissed on 15-4-1999. Accordingly, the said petition survives only by Harshad Kantilal Mehta.

3. Both these writ petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Pune dated 2nd April, 1986 in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1985. It is common ground that the tenant was inducted in the premises situated at Survey No. 696/1, Munjeri Bibvewadi, Pune 9 in Adinath Society, Flat No. D 80, Satara Road, Pune, pursuant to a leave and licence agreement dated 10th November, 1972 in favour of Harshad Kantilal Mehta. Since the licence was subsisting on 1st February, 1973, said Harshad Mehta became the protected tenant by virtue of the amendment of the Bombay Rent Act. According to the landlady though premises were let out to Harshad Kantilal Mehta who was inducated as licensee, in due course of time, he left for abroad for the good and the premises were thereafter, occupied by his father Kantilal Mehta and other family members. It is the case of the landlady that the tenant and the occupants who were in possession of the premises failed to pay monthly rent as agreed upon. In the circumstances, the landlady issued a demand notice on 15th October, 1980 demanding arrears of rent since 14 November, 1972 to 30th October, 1980. By the said notice, the landlady also called upon the tenant as well as his father to vacate the suit premises by the end of 30th December, 1980. After this notice was received by the tenant, reply was sent on 12th November, 1980. According to the tenant, they were not in arrears and, in fact, they had paid all the dues but the landlady had never issued any rent receipts. It is not dispute that after the receipt of demand notice the tenant did not offer any amount as demanded in the suit notice nor raised any dispute regarding the fixation of standard rent in respect of the demised premises within one month from the date of receipt of the notice. Be that as it may, since tenant did not offer any amount as demanded in the said notice, the landlady instituted suit in the Court of Small Causes Court at Pune, being Civil Suit No. 704 of 1981. This suit was filed for possession of the suit premises on two grounds. The first ground was default and the second ground was for bona fide and reasonable requirement. Both the parties adduced evidence and the trial Court after considering the materials on record was pleased to dismiss the suit by order dated 27th April, 1984. According to the trial Court, the tenant was not in default. Even the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement has been negatived by the trial Court. The matter was therefore, carried in appeal by the landlady before the District Court, Pune, being Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1985. The Appellate Court on the other hand has reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and instead held that the tenant was defaulter within the meaning of section 12(3)(a) of the Act. The Appellate Court also held that the landlady has established the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the demised premises for her son Ravi and his family. However, in so far as the issue of comparative hardship is concerned, the Appellate Court answered the same in favour of the tenant and for which reason decree was confined only with regard to the ground of def

Click Here to Read the rest of this document