Skip to content


Ramachandra Bastiram Saraswat Vs. Ramniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Civil Appln. No. 2523 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Bom417
ActsHyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Leases) Control Act, 1954 - Sections 15; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 114
AppellantRamachandra Bastiram Saraswat
RespondentRamniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya
Appellant AdvocateB.G. Deshpande, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Bora, Adv.
Excerpt:
the case questioned as to whether the tenant in arrears of rent was a wilful defaulter - the compromise decree was filed to pay arrears of rent in installment but the tenant failed to pay the installment - the application for eviction was filed by the landlord - the court ruled that tenant was wilful defaulter - any payment made and any acceptance after the filing of the eviction proceedings did not come in the way of the landlord - further, the tenant was not entitled to the benefit against the forfeiture under section 114 of the transfer property act, since he was governed by special statute - - bora urged that the tenant failed to pay the instalments and he could pay only two instalments out of the same -mr. assuming for a moment that the petitioner can avail of this benefit i am..........had originally filed a civil revision application but it was allowed to be converted as special civil application. 6. the only question is whether the tenant is a wilful defaulter. it is not disputed that earlier the tenant was in arrears of rent to the tune of rupees 1100/- and for that purpose the landlord was required to file a regular civil suit no.259/70, which ended in a compromise in which the tenant agreed to pay the decretal dues in seven equal instalments. mr. s. c. bora urged that the tenant failed to pay the instalments and he could pay only two instalments out of the same -- mr. bora further urged that it was agreed at that time that future rent was to be paid regularly. now it is an undisputed fact that the tune of rs. 1202/- on the date on which the landlord filed this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant, who has lost in both the Courts below and has come to this Court under the following circumstances.

2. The respondent, who is a landlord had filed an application before the Rent Controller at Jalna for evicting the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner was a wilful defaulter in as much as he had committed defaults in paying the rent amount of Rs. 1201/- from 23-12-1970 to 26-6-1973.

3. The petitioner-tenant appeared before the Rent Controller and resisted the petition. He contended that he had spent Rs. 202/- for expenses. This amount is not pressed before maintenance. He contended further that he had sent money orders which the landlord refused to accept an so he was not a wilful defaulter. It appears that he challenged the validity of the notice also before the Rent Controller.

4. After considering the evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that the notice was valid and that the defendant tenant was a wilful defaulter. He, therefore, passed an order that the tenant should vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of knowledge of his order.

5. Feeling aggrieved the defendant tenant preferred Rent Appeal No. 19 of 1977 before the District Judge, Aurangabad. After hearing the counsel, the learned District Judge agreed with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. Feeling aggrieved the tenant had originally filed a civil revision application but it was allowed to be converted as Special Civil Application.

6. The only question is whether the tenant is a wilful defaulter. It is not disputed that earlier the tenant was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rupees 1100/- and for that purpose the landlord was required to file a Regular Civil Suit No.259/70, which ended in a compromise in which the tenant agreed to pay the decretal dues in seven equal instalments. Mr. S. C. Bora urged that the tenant failed to pay the instalments and he could pay only two instalments out of the same -- Mr. Bora further urged that it was agreed at that time that future rent was to be paid regularly. Now it is an undisputed fact that the tune of Rs. 1202/- on the date on which the landlord filed this application. In the Court, the tenant has filed an affidavit indicating the amount of rent and the dates of payments made by him. Admittedly, the rent is Rs. 40/- per month and the schedule in the affidavit also goes to show that the tenant is a wilful defaulter. Any payment made and any acceptance after the filing of the eviction proceedings, does not come in the way of the landlord and, therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the orders of the Courts below.

7. At this stage. Mr. B. G. Deshpande appearing for the petitioner urged before me that the tenant should be given relief against the forfeiture under Section 114 of the T. P. Act In the first place, the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is governed by special statute known as Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Leases) Control Act, 1954 and hence the provisions of general law will not be available to the petitioner. Assuming for a moment that the petitioner can avail of this benefit I am satisfied that in the instant case, the petitioner does not deserve to be given the benefit against the forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. Earlier he was in default of rent to the tune of Rs. 1100/- and at the time of this petition in the trial Court he was in default and was in arrears of rent of Rs. 1202/-. Hence I do not find any merit in this special civil application and it deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. The petitioner is given only two months time from today to hand over the vacant possession.

8. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //