ORDER :- The petitioners who are the legal representatives of the original tenant Balkrishna Jagtap, have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the decree made by the learned District Judge, Sholapur, in Civil Appeal No. 380 of 1969 on affirming that of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barsi, in Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 1968.

2. The few facts necessary for the disposal of the application could be briefly stated thus : The property in dispute is C. T. S. No. 2514 situate on the Station Road at Barsi in District Sholapur. The original defendant No. 1, since deceased, had taken it on lease for a period of eleven months under a rent note Ex. 53 dated 17th December 1960. The rent agreed upon was Rs. 25 per month. Respondent No. 1 landlord terminated the tenancy of the tenant by a notice dated 2nd August 1967 and claimed possession mainly on the ground of default in payment of rent from March 1966 to July 1967, change in the user of the premises leased out, erection of permanent structures which were about three in number, and taking a water pipe connection without the landlord's consent, obtained in writing, and unlawful sub-letting. The suit came to be filed on 23rd January, 1968. The short answer made by the defendant-tenant was a stout denial of the various grounds on which possession was claimed, accompanied by a further submission that the landlord had agreed to sell the suit property to him for a consideration of Rs. 4,000 or Rs. 5,000. The terms of agreement were set out on a chit of paper but they were to be reduced on a stamped paper which was purchased on 17th April 1964. Under the terms of the agreement the price was fixed at Rs. 5,000. Rs. 2,000 were paid by way of earnest and the balance was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar. The period prescribed for obtaining the sale-deed was eleven months. However, it contained an important clause that till the sale was completed, the tenant was to go on paying the rent. The stamped paper was purchased in plaintiff's son's name, but before a regular deed could be drawn, defendant No. 1 died and the matter rested there. It is needless to refer to the other defences taken by the tenant. The learned Civil Judge framed as many as eleven issues and found almost all of them in favour of the landlord. On the turning point regarding the agreement of sale, he was inclined to uphold the plea but felt that the tenant had failed to establish his readiness and willingness; therefore, the doctrine of part performance could not run to his rescue. The standard rent came to be fixed at Rs. 25 per month, probably on the concession made by the tenant during the trial. As all the points were answered against the tenant, a decree as prayed for was made. Against this decree the petitioners preferred an appeal, but the learned District Judge in a refreshingly brief judgment found that the tenants cannot successfully take shelter of the doctrine of part performance and for that purpose he mainly relied upon the last clause mentioned in the chit that the tenant was to pay the rent till the execution of the sale-deed and as there was non-payment of rent, in his opinion it could be said that the tenants were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. He proceeded to observe further that the tenants had disclaimed the ownership of the plaintiff and therefore the protection under the Rent Act was not available to them. On such considerations he thought that the decree passed by the lower Court was pre-eminently correct and the appeal had no force. Consequently he confirmed the decree and against this decree the tenants have approached this Court.

3. Mr. Sali for the petitioners has raised a preliminary objection not only to the approach made by the learned District Judge but to the form of his judgment and failure to comply with the requisitions of an appellate judgment mentioned in Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The nex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document