JUDGMENT:· The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioners - Landlords on being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order in an Appeal by the Learned IV Additional District Judge, Pune dated 7th April, 1990 whereby the Appeal was allowed and the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was set aside.

2. The facts and circumstances of the case are stated as follows : The Respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant in Block No.6, on the ground floor in the building known as Pastakia Mansion, 906, Booty Street, Pune by the then Landlady, Mrs.B.J.Pastakia on terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement dated 1st February, 1969. In the said agreement it was stated that a rent of Rs.60/- per month was payable by the tenant exclusive of electricity charges and education cess and other recoverable taxes from the tenant. The Respondent No.1 was also to pay a sum of Rs.5/- separately by way of monthly water charges in addition to the above. On 27th December,1979, the present Petitioners had purchased the suit building from the then owner Mrs.B.J.Pastakia under a registered sale deed. It is the contention of the Petitioners that subsequently Respondent No.1 fell in arrears of payment of rent from 1st October, 1980. The Petitioners gave a notice dated 9th June,1981 to Respondent No.1 calling him to pay the arrears of rent and also terminated the tenancy of Respondent No.1. It is alleged that the Respondent No.1 neither replied to the said notice nor paid the arrears of rent.

3. The Petitioners had therefore filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Pune, being Suit No.1257 of 1982 for possession on the grounds of arrears of rent, illegal subletting, waste and damage and acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their written statement had contended that they had personally went to pay the rent, but the Petitioners had refused to accept the same, hence he was compelled to send the rent and taxes by a money order which was refused by the Plaintiff on 18th June, 1981. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their written statement had also denied having acquired alternative accommodation, but had the House No.1I01, Old Modikhana, Pune much before taking over of the present suit premises on a tenancy basis. On 30th June, 1986, the III Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune had decreed the Petitioners' suit and directed Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to deliver possession of the suit premises on or before 31st December, 1986 and Respondent No.1 was directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.1485.40. In the said judgment, the learned Trial Judge as far as arrears of rent and acql1isition of alternative accommodation grounds were answered in favour of the Tenants. No issue was framed regarding waste and damage. The trial Court clearly gives a finding that there was illegal subletting, accordingly suit was decreed. However, in the said judgment the trial Court had not dealt with the issue of limitation. The present Petitioners did not challenge the findings regarding arrears of rent and acquisition of alternate accommodation.

4. Being aggrieved by the above Judgment and Order dated 30th June, 1986, the Respondents had filed an Appeal in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Pune being Civil Appeal No. 1036 of 1986. The Learned IVth Additional District Judge, Pune, by his Judgment and Order dated 7th April, 1990 had allowed the Appeal and had set aside the decree of the Trial Court on the ground that the suit was clearly barred by law of limitation since no action was taken by the Landlords for more than 12 years after the breach of conditions of tenancy with regard to creation of illegal tenancy. The Lower Appellate Court has given a clear finding that though Respondent No.1 entered into the said tenancy agreement, he never stayed in the suit premises, right from inception, i.e. 1st February, 1969, the date on which tenancy agreement was entered into. The lower Appellate Court also has recorded a finding that the illegal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document