1 CRA No.781/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.781/2000 Smt. Kanta w/o Sadashiv Dahat Age: 69 yrs. Occu. Household, R/o 56-57, N-1, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. - Applicant VERSUS 1) M/s Ellora Steel Limitd E-26/27, MIDC Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad, Through its Manager. 2) M/s Ellora Steel Ltd. MIDC Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad, Through Official Liquidator, High Court, 3rd Floor, Bank of India Building, Fort, Bombay-32. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SK Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner; None for Respondent, though served. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard Mr.Kulkarni for the revision petitioner (Administrator of the Will of Mr.MN Wankhede) in respect of the questioned properties including other properties. 2) Respondent – M/s Ellora Steels (now under 2 CRA No.781/2000 liquidation) attempted to be served by process of this Court, as could be seen in the orders of this Court dated 6.5.2009 and even by subsequent orders. However, no heed is paid by the Official Liquidator or the respondent/company to appoint an Advocate or to prosecute it cause to defend the matter. 3) The status of the revision applicant, being administrator, not now in controversy, it does not require any discussion. The suit premises is on plot Nos. 13 and 14 in CIDCO, n-1, new Aurangabad owned by Shri M.N.Wankhede, who, during his lifetime, had given it on lease to the respondent company at the monthly rent of rs.600/-. Mr.Wankhede expired on 1st May, 1978. By virtue of his will dated 28th March, 1978, he directed that the house in question should be sold and the said proceeds be distributed equally amongst the sisters and other beneficiaries. The eviction proceedings in respect of suit premises were initiated before the Rent Controller, Aurangabad on 6.10.1992.The eviction proceedings were initiated against the respondent on three counts, vi. i) willful default; ii) bonafide requirement and ii) alterations, since Mr.Wankhede, owner of the property, is no more, both the courts recorded negative finding for bonafide requirement. The alterations or additions in respect of the car shed is also found not proved. 4) The point remains about non-payment of rentals agreed upon by the respondent payable to the landlord. Both the Courts are against the 3 CRA No.781/2000 landlord/revision applicant. The record illustrate that respondent/tenant was in arrears of Rs.73,175/-, out of which, it has paid Rs.66,575/- on 2nd December, 1987 and Rs.6,600/- on 31st October, 1988. These deposits are made in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. The subsequent payment made by the respondent for the period from December 1988 to 31st March, 1991 was not in tune with the practice for regular remittances of the rent, it was after service of the notice upon the respondent, sent thorough advocate of the petitioner. 5) It is established on record that even after serving the notice, the respondent/company did not clear of entire arrears of rent and has unauthorizedly deducted an amount of Rs.9750/- towards repairs, painting, renewal etc. This was the theme and the purpose of the lease agreement between the original landlord and the respondent/tenant, the deductions of Rs.9750/-, naturally were unauthorized. The respondent could not establish its entitlement for making such deductions. The landlord established that still an amount of Rs.9750/- was outstanding to the respondent, as the deduction was unauthorized and not proved in terms of Section 20 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act. The respondent has not even cared to deposit any amount of rental to the beneficiaries in any other forum after March 1991. 6) These aspects lost sight of by both the authorities. Witness of the respondent has said that since there was nobody to claim the rent, the amount 4 CRA No.781/2000 so kept with the Director of the respondent/company, is difficult to digest. It was primary expectation of the respondent as tenant to have searched the landlord or to have made an application to the appropriate authority in respect of the remittances of the amount. Such exercise is not complied with and consequently, it is apparent, the respondent/tenant has provenly carried the risk of facing the eviction being not remitting rentals to the landlord. The defaults come within the bracket of willful default as the respondent had taken unreasonable excuses to discharge its obligation for regular remittance of the rent. 7) The suit premises was given on rent to the original Respondent No.1-Company for residence of its employees or officers. Since more than ten years, the Company is not functioning and consequently, the premises remained unoccupied. Since the Company has gone in liquidation in Company Petition No.367/2003, the Liquidator has taken charge. Consequently, the premises remained locked for non user. This subsequent development, not disputed, also cannot be ignored. The official liquidator has not responded to the Court notices, even to the notice of learned Advocate sent, as was directed by this court. 8) Taking survey of all the facts, even if the landlord failed to establish bonafide requirement or carried out alterations in the premises, the default committed by the respondent is established. Non- participation of the respondent has added fuel to the 5 CRA No.781/2000 situation. 9) In the result, Civil Revision Application allowed. The order dated 29.12.1996 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad in R.C.No. 41/1991 and the order dated 7th December, 1999 passed by learned District Judge, Aurangabad in Rent Appeal No. 4/1995, are quashed and set aside. The respondent/company is directed to give vacant possession of the suit premises to the revision/petitioner up to 31st March, 2012 with costs. Respondent, naturally shall clear of all the arrears of up to 31st March, 2012. 10) Rule made absolute in above terms. sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/