NIVRUTI MARUTI KASHID Vs. SHRINIWAS JANARDHAN BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 18.10.1984 passed by the Assistant Judge, Sangli, in Regular Civil Appeal No.272/1981. That civil appeal was filed by the original defendant Nivrutti, of whom the present petitioners are the legal representatives, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.6.1981 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj, in Regular Civil Suit No.106/1976. That civil suit was filed by the respondent claiming therein that he is owner of property bearing C.T.S.No.8207/9(A)(2) situate at Miraj motor stand in Miraj City and the original defendant Nivrutti was a tenant of the suit premises. The landlord sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that he has committed default in payment of rent. The trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the landlord and decreed the suit directing the tenant to vacate the suit premises. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the finding recorded by the trial Court was confirmed. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. In the present petition, therefore, the orders passed by both the courts below are challenged.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding this petition are that a notice dated 20.4.1976 was issued by the landlord to the tenant claiming arrears of rent from 1.9.1971. Within one month of the receipt of the notice, the tenant filed an application for fixation of standard rent and therefore both the courts below found that a decree under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act cannot be passed against the tenant. However, both the courts found that though the civil suit was filed on 2.6.1976, the first payment of rent was made by the tenant on 11.9.1981 and therefore for non-compliance with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Act, a decree of eviction is liable to be passed against the tenant.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted before me that it was always the case of the tenant that he was direct tenant of the landlord since 1971 and it is this case which is accepted by both the courts in the previous litigation. In the submission of the learned counsel, therefore, there was no justification for the tenant to go on paying rent to the previous tenant and therefore in the submission of the learned counsel, payment of rent made by the tenant to the previous tenant cannot be taken into consideration.