JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Sangli dated 31st March 1987 in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1982.

2. The premises in question consists of room admeasuring 40 x 10 sq. ft. in CTS No. 305, Pet Bhag, Sangli. The original petitioner Natwarlal Gokuldas Shah was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises some time in the year 1952. The respondent is the landlord. The respondent instituted a suit for possession against the tenant on the ground of default and bona fide requirement in the year 1970, being RCS No. 19 of 1970. However, we are concerned only with the ground of default. The tenant contested the said suit. It was his case that annual rent in respect of the suit premises was only Rs. 150/- per annum and not as demanded by the landlord. The trial Court accepted that claim of the tenant. The trial Court, however, found that the respondent landlord was entitled to rent for a period of 6 years from 1965 to 1970 at the rate of Rs. 150/- per annum, whereas the tenant was entitled to credit of Rs. 1243-59 paid by him towards the taxes with regard to the suit premises to the Sangli Municipality and for further credit of amount of Rs. 1960/- deposited by the tenant in Court from time to time. Accordingly, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 22-4-1972 was pleased to dismiss the suit with costs. Against this decree the matter was carried in appeal by the landlords, being Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1973, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The landlord carried the matter to this Court by way of writ petition, which was also dismissed. Thereafter the tenant filed Misc. Application No. 585 of 1973 before the Civil Judge, J.D., Sangli contending that he had paid Rs. 1234-59 to the Sangli Municipality for and on behalf of landlord; had deposited amount of Rs. 1960/- in Court from time to time during the pendency of earlier proceedings between the parties, and also claimed costs of Rs. 186/- and Rs. 46-87 in suit and appeal respectively, therefore, prayed that after adjusting the amount of Rs. 1500/- payable by him towards rent from 1-1-1965 to 31-12-1974, he was entitled to recover balance amount of Rs. 1927-46 from the landlord. That application came to be dismissed on 17-6-1976. Against that decision the tenant carried the matter in appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 227 of 1975. That appeal was partly allowed by the Appellate Court on 17-6-1976, holding that the tenant was, entitled to refund of Rs. 460/- out of Rs. 1960/- deposited in the Court but was not entitled to recover other amounts from the landlord. Suffice it to mention that the issue regarding adjustment of the amounts paid by the tenant towards deposit to the municipality and in Court from time to time stood concluded by this order. The tenant on his understanding of this order, issued notice to the landlord on 15-11-1976 (Exh. 20) calling upon the landlord to make certain adjustments and to pay the amount as indicated in the said notice, which, according to the tenant, was due to him from the landlord. This notice was sent by the advocate for the tenant. In response to this notice the landlord through his Advocate, sent reply on 16-12-1976 (Exh. 21), inter alia, denying that he was liable to pay any amount to the tenant or that the tenant was entitled for any adjustments as claimed in the notice dated 15-11-1976. Thereafter the landlord directly proceeded to institute suit for possession being Regular Civil Suit No. 377 of 1977, before the Civil Judge, J.D., Sangli on 9-8-1977 inter alia, on the ground of default. According to the landlord, the tenant was in arrears of rent from 17-6-1976. Besides, the landlord claimed possession also on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. However, the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement has not been pressed by the landlord at the later stage in appeal. This suit was re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document