The court affirmed that non-compliance with statutory rent payment obligations and unauthorized changes in property use justify eviction under the Rent Act.

JUDGMENT :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 21^st September 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 489 of 1994, whereby while dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against a decree of eviction passed in RCS No. 204 of 1989 by the learned Civil Judge, Madha, Solapur, on the ground of default in payment of rent, the learned District Judge also passed the decree of eviction on the grounds of unauthorized erection of permanent structure, non-user of Suit premises for the purpose for which it was let and nuisance.

2. The background facts can be summarised as under:

2.1 The deceased Respondent No.1 had constructed a chawl “Kadadi Chawl” bearing Municipal House No.1, Kurduwadi, Madha. The Petitioner-Defendant was a tenant of Unit No. 56, comprising of two rooms. The tenancy was monthly. Rent was Rs. 7/- per month. The tenant was liable to pay Rs.3/- per month towards the permitted increase.

2.2 Asserting that the Defendant committed default in payment of rent and permitted increase, the Plaintiff addressed a statutory notice on 4^th March 1989 and, thereby, professed to terminate the tenancy of the Defendant.

2.3 In the Plaint, it was asserted, inter alia, that the Suit premises was let for residential purpose. However, the Defendant had changed the user of the Suit premises by running a hotel therein. The Defendant had erected permanent structure in the front and rear portion of the Suit premises. On account of the hotel business, especially the furnace installed by the Defendant and the waste, the user of the premises was causing nuisance and annoyance to the neighbouring occupiers.

2.3 The Defendant resisted the Suit by filing Written Statement.

2.4 The jural relationship was not put in contest. It was, however, denied that the Defendant was in arrears of rent. According to the Defendant, agreed rent was Rs.10/- and the Defendant had been regularly paying the agreed rent. It was denied that the Defendant had changed the user of the premises, erected permanent structure and the use of the premises was causing nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining occupants.

2.5 The learned Civil Judge settled the issues. At the trial, Mr. G.S. Patil, (PW-1), the constituted attorney of the Plaintiff entered into witness-box. In the rebuttal the Defendant examined himself and a witness-D.R. Raut (DW2). The parties also tendered the documents for the perusal of the Court.

2.6 After appraisal of the evidence and the material on record, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to hold that the Defendant incurred the forfeiture of tenancy on account of default in payment of rent as the Defendant failed to establish that, within one month from the date of service of notice, the Defendant had tendered rent and permitted increase to the Plaintiff, and the tender of the amount by the Money order after the institution of the Suit and the first date of hearing was of no avail to the Defendant. Moreover, no effort was made by the Defendant to deposit the rent and permitted increase along with interest and costs before the Trial Court prior to the first date of hearing. Resultantly, the Defendant was not entitled to relief against forfeiture.

2.7 The learned Civil Judge, however, held that though there was material to show that permanent structures