ZAHIR AHMED ALI RAZA KHAN Vs. PREM KUMAR PAPALAL JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Court in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the landlord, who filed an application on 18.8.1980 for permission to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Control Order'). The respondent-landlord contended that the petitioner-tenant is a habitual defaulter and he has annexed a statement showing defaults made by the petitioner. The stand taken by the tenant-petitioner is that the rent was to be paid according to the convenience and he had carried out the repairs of the rented premises and the said amount is liable to be adjusted against the rental due. Therefore, he cannot be said to be a habitual defaulter.

(3.) I have gone through the orders passed by the Courts below holding that the tenant is a habitual defaulter. Even from the application filed by the petitioner, defaults committed by him are clear. The respondent-landlord has also annexed a statement of defaults committed by the petitioner-tenant. From the records it appears that the petitioner had issued a letter to the respondent to carry out the repairs and that in case the respondent is not ready to carry out the repairs, he will himself carry out the repairs. The notice received by the petitioner-tenant from the Municipal Council, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not find place in the record. Even assuming that such a notice is received by the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part of the tenant to approach the landlord for carrying out the repairs and, in case the same was not done, then only the tenant was entitled to carry out the repairs and, thereafter, claim the amount of expenditure incurred for carrying out repairs from the landlord. Even the provisions of Section 108-F of the Transfer of Property Act clearly speaks about the intimation/notice to the landlord before carrying out the repairs. It is pertinent to note that no notice or intimation was given by the tenant to the landlord in the instant case. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Chandurkar that no notice was required to be given on the basis of the notice received by the tenant from the Municipal Council is not liable to be sustained.