This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 26th February, 2007, passed by the Principal District Judge, Latur, in Rent Appeal No. 05 of 2005. The revision applicant has also prayed that impugned judgment and order be set aside and judgment and order dated 11.04.2005, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Rent Controller, Latur, in File No. 1988/RCA/A/7 may kindly be restored.

2. Revision applicant herein is landlord and Deceased Original-respondent was tenant of the suit premises. Revision applicant will be hereinafter referred to as ‘Land-Lord’ and Respondent herein will be referred to as ‘Tenant’ for convenience. The landlord sought possession of the suit premises, which is shop situated at Latur from the tenant. According to the landlord, there was agreement of rent of the suit shop between himself and the tenant. The last deed of rent was dated 1st November, 1986. The tenant agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.400/per month and same to be paid till within first five days of every month. The tenant has paid rent to the landlord till September, 1987, as per the agreement. Since October, 1987 till March, 1988 rent was neither paid nor tendered by the tenant. No fresh “Rent-Note” was executed between the landlord and tenant. The landlord, therefore, had given notice to the tenant on 20th January, 1988 and demanded the rent. The tenant replied the notice on 22nd February, 1988. He informed the landlord that as there is dispute of ownership of the suit premises, he could not tender the rent. He also requested the landlord to show proof of the ownership of the suit preemies before paying any rent by him.

3. The landlord purchased the suit shop from Bhamabai Atmaram Hanchate. The suit shop was in possession of the tenant, as tenant, at that time also. The landlord had given information to the tenant about his transaction. Thereafter, “Rent-Note” came to be executed in between the landlord and tenant in the year 1986. The tenant was paying the rent to the landlord i.e. revision applicant till September, 1987. Since, the tenant denied the ownership of the landlord over the suit property, it is case of the revision applicant that he is entitled to get possession of the suit premises from the tenant.

4. The landlord again issued a notice on 07.03.1988 requesting the tenant to pay the rent. The tenant has not paid rent on the demand, within stipulated period of the notice. It is case of the landlord that even the said notice was not replied by the tenant. The landlord, therefore, filed suit for possession of suit shop, situated at Kapad Lane having Municipal House No. 23:124.

5. The tenant resisted the claim and he stated that there was rent agreement between himself and landlord and he agreed to pay the rent monthly. However, relatives of the landlord filed suit in the Civil Court at Latur bearing R.C.S.No. 1044 of 1983 for ownership of the suit shop. Both the parties claiming ownership, gave notices to the tenant, claiming their ownership and asking him to pay the rent to them. Since, there was dispute about ownership, the tenant denied ownership of petitioner over the suit premises.

6. As there was dispute about ownership, the tenant intimated to the landlord and also his relative that rent would be deposited in the Court itself. The tenant deposited the rent of the disputed shop before the Rent Controller on 04.04.1988. The tenant deposited arrears of rent on 15.4.1988 and on 25.04.1988 and he continued to deposit the rent before the District Court thereafter. It is case of the tenant that the said rent, which was deposited by him has been withdrawn by the landlord. Therefore, the tenant asserted that, he is not willful defaulter and ultimately prays that eviction petition filed by the landlord deserves to be dismissed.

7. The landlord has filed his own affidavit in support of his petition for eviction. As against it, the tenant examined his son, as power of attorney in sup