SUMAN NARAYAN SULAKHE Vs. SHRIKRISHNA CHINTAMAN AGASHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 20.6.1986 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.527/86. That Appeal was filed by the petitioners, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1985 passed by the 4th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No.2114/81. That civil suit was filed by the present respondent claiming therein that he is landlord the suit premises of which the present petitioners are the tenants. The landlord claimed a decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. The trial Court found that initially by the order dated 12.6.1981 the interim rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.100/-. However by the order dated 6.11.1981, the interim rent was revised to Rs.150/-. The Court found that as the petitioner did not deposit the rent as per the revised rate, his application for fixation of the standard was also dismissed. The revision filed against that order was also came to be dismissed. The trial court therefore, found that the tenant has not been regular in making the deposits of the rents in the court and therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the premises under section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. In the Appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal summarily.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged before me that the interim rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.100/- p.m. Further, by the order dated 6.11.81 the interim rent was revised to Rs.150/- p.m. The revised rent would be payable from the date of the order and therefore, the tenant has made deposits in the court to that effect. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly when the Court initially fixed the interim rent at the rate of Rs.100/-p.m. by the order dated 12.6.1981 the tenant was liable to deposit the amount of rent at the rate of Rs.100/-p.m. from 1.4.1973, the date from which the tenant was in arrears of the rent and when the same Court then revised the rent to Rs.150/-p.m. obviously the tenant would be liable to pay the rent at the revised rate from 1.4.1973. The order passed in the Application for fixation of the standard rent, dismissing the Application for non compliance of the order the Court to operate against the petitioners-tenant. I find no fault in the findings recorded by the trial Court that the tenant has not been regular in making deposits of the rent. There is no error of law in the findings recorded by both the courts below and as such there is no justification for this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering with these concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below.

(3.) AT this stage the learned counsel for the petitioners, requests that the petitioner, who is widow, should be given a reasonable time to vacate the suit premises. In the submission of the learned counsel one year's time would be a reasonable time. The learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the request for grant of reasonable time, however, submits that one year's time is not a reasonable. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and specially the fact that the petitioner is widow, in my opinion, it would be just and equitable to grant her one year's time to vacate the suit premises. However, the petitioners will have to submit an undertaking to this court in the usual from within a period of three weeks from today. It is, therefore, directed that the decree of eviction passed against the petitioners shall not be executed for the period of one year from today, subject to the condition that within a period of three weeks the petitioners submit the undertaking in the usual for to this court. Failure of the petitioners to submit the undertaking within the aforesaid period shall, however, entitled the respondent landlord to execute the decree immediately.