IMPORTANT POINT
A tenant's failure to communicate rent deposits and respond to rent demands constitutes default, justifying eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :

1) This Petition is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 20 January 1996 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Pune allowing Civil Appeal No.550/1992 and setting aside the decree dated 1 October 1992 passed by the Third Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No. 613 of 1985. The Appellate Court has decreed Civil Suit No. 613 of 1985 and has held that the Plaintiff-Respondent is entitled to recover possession of the suit premises directing the Petitioner-Defendant to handover possession thereof to the Plaintiff within a period of 6 months.

2) Two rooms on ground floor of the house property bearing City Survey No. 302, Shukravar Peth, Pune are the ‘suit premises’. Plaintiffs are landlords of house property bearing No.302 and Defendant was inducted as monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises. It was averred in the Plaint that Defendant was not paying the rent from time to time and was in arrears since 01 August 1971. That the standard rent in respect of the premises were fixed at Rs. 8.60/- and after 1 April 1981, there was increase in water charges, sewerage charges etc. and the rent became Rs.9.40/-. Plaintiff demanded the arrears of rent by Notice dated 7 January 1985 and after adjusting Rs.857/- deposited in the court from total arrears of Rs. 1,420.60/-, Defendant was claimed to be in arrears of Rs. 563.60/-as on 31 December 1984 and Plaintiff demanded the same. Despite receipt of notice, the Defendant did not pay the rent within the prescribed time limit. Since Defendant was in arrears of rent in excess of period of 6 months, Plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 613/1985 in the Court of Small Causes, Pune.

3) The suit was resisted by the Defendant by filing written statement contending, inter-alia that though she was willing to pay the rent, Plaintiffs refused to accept the same. That various money orders were not accepted by Plaintiffs. Defendant disputed increase in rent and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendant also filed Misc. Application No. 140 of 1985 seeking fixation of standard rent in respect of the suit premises on 12 February 1985.

4) Plaintiffs led evidence by examining Plaintiff No.1 as witness. Defendant examined herself as a witness. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the Suit by decree dated 1 October 1992 holding that Plaintiffs did not prove that Defendant had defaulted payment of rent under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). Plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No. 552 of 1992 before the District Judge, Pune. The Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal by its judgment and decree dated 20 January 1996 and has set aside the Trial Court’s decree dated 1 October 1992. The Appellate Court has decreed the suit directing the Defendant to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff within six months. Aggrieved by the decree of the Appellate Court dated 20 January 1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 550 of 1992, Petitioner-Defendant has filed the present petition. By order dated 24 July 1996 this Court admitted the petition and stayed the decree of the Appellate Court.

5) Mr. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Appellate Court has erred in reversing well-reasoned decree of the Trial Court ignoring the fact that there was no default in payment of rent on the part of Petitioners/Defendants and that Plaintiff was repeatedly filing Suits with a view to somehow seek ouster of the Defendant from the suit premises. That earlier Suit No. 3355 of 1974 on the ground of default which came to be dismissed and the decree of the Trial Court came to be confirmed by the Appellate Court, this Court and finally by the Supreme Court. That the said litigation remained pending till 23 July 1984. Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff served fresh Notice dated 7 January 1985. That th