ORDER :- One Haribhau Bhimrao Ghodke was the landlord of a building situated at village Pandharpur in Solapur district. One Saraswatibai Narhar Mudgal was his tenant. Regular Civil Suit No. 36 of 1969 was filed by Haribhau Bhimrao against the said Saraswatibai for possession of the premises leased to her on the ground, amongst others, that the landlord required the same bona fide and reasonably for his own use and occupation. Pending the suit Saraswatibai died and her legal representative the present respondent, was brought on record.

2. By his judgement and order dated 14th Dec. 1971 the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit holding, among other things, that the notice by which the landlord had terminated the tenancy of Saraswatibai was invalid. The landlord preferred an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1972, which was heard and dismissed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Solapur by his judgement and order dated 9th Aug. 1973. The learned Appellate Judge concurred with the view of the trial Court that the notice purporting to terminate the tenancy of the tenant did not in law terminate the tenancy. The learned Appellate Judge, however, held that if the tenancy is deemed to be terminated properly then he would have remitted the matter to the trial Court for considering the feasibility of passing a decree for part of the premises.

3. It is this decree of the learned Extra Assistant Judge that is challenged by the present petition. During the pendency of the petition, Haribhau Bhimrao the original landlord died and his legal representatives have been brought on record and they are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners.

4. The hurdle in the way of the petitioners which was proved to be insurmountable is the invalidity of the notice. According to the learned Appellate Judge, the rent receipts which are at Exhibits 82, 83 and 91 show that the month of the tenancy commenced on the Shudh Saptami of each month of the Hindu calendar. The tenancy, therefore, ought to have been terminated with effect from Shudh Shashti of a month of the Hindu calendar. Unfortunately for the petitioners the notice terminating the tenancy issued by Haribhau Bhimrao purported to terminate the tenancy with effect from 30th Nov., 1968, i.e. the end of the month of the British calendar. This notice was obviously invalid inasmuch as it could not validly terminate the tenancy of the respondent.

5. Mr. B.N. Naik, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has criticised the judgement of the Appellate Court below in two ways. He first contended that the tenancy in fact does not commence on the Shudh Saptami of the month of the Hindu calendar. It does in fact commence on the 1st of the calendar month according to the British calendar. He further contended that in the instant case the original tenancy is proved to be of 11 months and thereafter the tenant continued to remain in possession of the suit premises as a statutory tenant enjoying what has been called the status of irremovability on account of the restriction contained in the Rent Act. If this is so, says Mr. Naik, there is no necessity of giving the notice at all. He further contended relying upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in Puwada Venkateswara Rao v. Chidamana Venkata Ramana, AIR 1976 SC 869, that in a suit filed for possession under the provisions of the Rent Act a notice terminating the tenancy is not at all necessary.

6. In regard to the first contention of Mr. Naik that the tenancy did not in fact commence on the Shudh Saptami of the month according to the Hindu calendar, it is enough to point out that in this petition no such point has been taken. It has not been challenged that the finding in that regard given by the two Courts below is erroneous. Therefore, it is impossible to allow Mr. Naik to develop this point at all. However, Mr. Naik referred to the relevant exhibits and pointed out that in some of these exhibits which are rent receipts it is not mentioned that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document