JUDGMENT - KARNIK D.G., J.: - By this petition, the petitioner-tenant challenges the judgment and order dated 19th August, 1991 by which the VIIth Additional District Judge, Thane allowed an appeal of the landlord and passed a decree for possession.

2.The respondent is an owner and landlord of the property bearing House No. 33 Telipada, Bhivandi District Thane. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent occupying commercial premises bearing Gala Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) situated in the said house. At the time of letting the suit premises required extensive repairs and it was agreed that the petitioner would carry out the repairs and the amount spent would be recovered by the petitioner by deducting Rs. 75/- p.m. from the rent. A written agreement to that effect was executed between the parties in October, 1973. According to the respondent, the petitioner was in arrears and had not paid the rent from 1st December, 1977 till 31st August, 1978. Therefore by a notice dated 13th September, 1978 the respondent terminated the tenancy of the petitioner and also called upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. As the arrears were not paid the respondent filed a suit for possession on the ground of default as well as reasonable and bona fide requirement.

3.The petitioner resisted the suit. He contended that he had not received the notice of demand dated 13th September, 1978. He further contended that apart from the amounts spent by him for repairs, he had also paid the municipal taxes of the property and had also advanced a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent which he was entitled to adjust against the rent payable. If the adjustment was done, the petitioner was not in arrears of rent. On the other hand, there was excess payment to the respondent. He emphatically denied the receipt of the notice and stated that since no notice of demand was served, no decree for eviction could be passed on the ground of non payment of rent. He also resisted the claim of the respondent for possession the ground of bona fide requirement.

4.The trial Court held that the petitioner had incurred expenditure of Rs. 8700/- towards repairs and municipal taxes; the petitioner was not irregular in payment of rent and was not a defaulter. The trial Court also negatived the claim of bona fide requirement. In appeal filed by the respondent, the ground of bona fide requirement was not pressed. The Appellate Court however held that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent and passed a decree for possession. That judgment is impugned in this writ petition.

5.In the written statement, the petitioner has specifically contended that he had not received the notice dated 13th September, 1978. The respondent had produced on record the office copy of the notice alongwith a postal money receipt of payment of registration charges. That is a proof of despatch of the notice by registered post A.D. but not a proof of delivery or service. The postal acknowledgment of the notice was not produced. The respondent contended that the acknowledgment was not received back from the post office and had, therefore, obtained a certificate from the post office about delivery of the notice to the addressee. The certificate issued by the postal authorities was produced. The respondent further contended that apart from sending of the notice by registered post A.D. the notice was also pasted to the outer door of the suit premises on 28th September, 1978 in presence of two panch witnesses. One panch witness was examined to prove the pasting. The Appellate Court has not recorded any finding of fact whether it believed the service of notice by pasting. There is only one statement in the judgment of the Appellate Court regarding the service of notice and it reads thus :

"It could be stated that on the basis of the certificate issued by the postal authority (Exhibit 49) that the tenant had received it."

6.The onl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document