1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3495 OF 1991. Lalitkumar Gopaldas Gujarathi, Age 38 years, Occ.Service, R/o HouseNo.3609, Late Lane, Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Dattatray Ganesh Deshmukh, Deceased through his L.Rs. 1A. Jain Dattatraya Deshmukh, Age major, Occ.Service. 1B. Arvind Dattatraya Deshmukh, Age major, Occ.Service. 1C. Mohan Dattatraya Deshmukh, Deceased through his L.R. 1C.Manasi Mohan Deshmukh, Age major, Occ.Household, 1D. Nila Dattatraya Deshkukh, Age major, Occ.Household, R/o No.1A to 1D all R/o 167, Shrikrishnagar Boriwali, East, Bombay-66. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr.S.D.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. 2 Mr.D.A.Gursahani and Mr.D.K.Kulkarni, advocates for the Respondents absent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.03.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgment rendered by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in RCA No. 102/1982, whereby eviction decree granted by the Civil Court, Ahmednagar in RCS No.277/1976 has been confirmed. 2. Heard Mr.Sanket Kulkarni, learned advocate holding for Mr.S.D.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. None appeared for the Respondents. 3. The petitioner is original defendant (tenant) against whom the deceased Respondent had filed suit (RCS No.277/1976) for eviction of recovery of rent arrears. The dispute relates to tenement which is part of CTS No.3658/Municipal 3 House No.3609, situated at Ahmednagar. Admittedly, the petitioner was tenant inducted in the suit tenement by deceased Respondent - Dattatraya. The agreed rent was Rs.60/- p.m. The tenancy month was to commence from lst day of each calendar month. 4. The case of deceased Respondent Dattatraya was that the petitioner was inducted in the suit tenement in 1966 in pursuance to the tenancy agreement. The defendant (petitioner) did not pay rent for month of October 1974 and subsequently since January 1975 to November 1975. Therefore, by virtue of demand notice dated 29.12.1975 the demand of rent was made and so also the tenancy was terminated. The petitioner did not pay the amount of rent arrears within a period of thirty (30) days after receiving of the notice. Consequently, the deceased Respondent filed suit for recovery of possession. 5. The petitioner resisted the suit by filing written statement Exh.13. He contended that the notice was illegal and invalid. He 4 further contended that there were other co- sharers of the house property who were not joined as parties while issuing the notice and, therefore,the deceased Respondent alone had no legal right to terminate the tenancy. He further contended that two nieces of deceased Respondent Dattatraya, by name Smt.Malti Joshi and Smt.Shashikalabai Oturkar had informed him to stop payment of the rent to deceased Respondent Dattatraya. He was, therefore, in dilemma. He could not be termed as willful defaulter because there was valid reason for him to stop the payment due to internal disputes between deceased Dattatraya and other members of his family. He further submitted that standard rent may be fixed. 6. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay the rent only to deceased Respondent Dattatraya. It was held that the petitioner committed willful defaults in payment of the rent amounts. It was further held that since the payment was not made within thirty (30) days after receiving of the 5 notice, the petitioner was liable for eviction U/s 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (For short, "the Bombay Rent Act"). Hence,the suit was decreed. The petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed. 7. It has come on record that the agreement of tenancy was between the deceased Respondent Dattatraya and the petitioner. The petitioner had no concern with the so-called dispute raised by two nieces of deceased Respondent Dattatraya. He did not produce any record to show that for some valid reason said Smt.Malti Joshi and Smt.Shashikalabai Oturkar could prohibit him from making the payment of rent to deceased Respondent Dattatraya. What appears from the record is that there was some dispute between deceased Respondent Dattatraya and other co-sharers. The petitioner desired to take undue advantage of such dispute between the family members of the deceased Respondent. For him, deceased Respondent Dattatraya was the landlord because his agreement was with the 6 latter. Obviously, he could not have avoided payment of the rent under the pretext that said Smt.Malti and Shashikalabai had asked him to stop making payment of the rent to deceased Respondent - Dattatraya. 8. The petitioner did not file any application for fixation of the standard rent U/s 11 of the Bombay Rent Act. It is worthwhile to notice that the petitioner did not deposit the arrears of rent during pendency of the appeal before the first appellate Court nor such payment has been made during pendency of the present Writ Petition. There is no justification for such omission of the petitioner. Once, it is found that decree has been rendered against him then it follows that he was under legal obligation to pay the rent arrears in the first appellate Court without committing defaults. There was no occasion for confusion after the eviction decree was rendered by the trial Court. Needless to say, the petitioner continued to commit the defaults in payment of the rent. 7 9. Though, it appears that the trial Court framed issue regarding standard rent, yet, the agreed rent itself was treated as the standard rent. The petitioner did not ventilate any grievance about such finding of the trial Court before the first appellate Court. 10. There was no denial to the fact that the petitioner did not deposit the rent amount within period of thirty (30) days after receiving the quit notice. It follows that he was liable for eviction U/s 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, due to non-payment of the rent within the statutory period as provided U/s 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. There are concurrent findings of the facts rendered by the Courts below. There appears no perversity in the view taken by the Court. It was contended by Mr.Kulkarni, that Smt.Maltibai admitted the fact that she was co-sharer. It was further contended that she asserted that the petitioner was her tenant in the suit premises. This Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence of the parties in the context of the 8 relevant issue. There appears no perversity committed by the first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal. It is not necessary to elaborately consider the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, in the context of his rights as prospective purchaser. That issue falls outside the scope of present Writ Petition. 11. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any substance in the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp349591