1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2010 Rameshchandra s/o Outtamchand Jaju ... REVISION PETITIONER VERSUS Ravindra s/o Dinanath Pande ... RESPONDENT ..... S/Shri R.C. Kulkarni & V.K. Patni, Advocates for the revision petitioner Shri A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th November, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. Rejection of petition under Section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in Rent Appeal No.8/2009 by the learned District Judge at Aurangabad is impugned by the tenant. 2. Parties are referred as landlord and tenant for convenience. There is no dispute that the tenant occupies three rooms at first floor since last at least 30 years on monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The controversy revolves to user of a toilet (latrine) situated at northern side of the premises abutting the staircase. The tenant asserted that the user of toilet was part of tenancy. There is no specific denial to this effect from the landlord as the landlord, in paragraph No.7 of the written statement has 2 submitted that, allowing the tenant as a courtesy and on humanitarian grounds to user of toilet will not be a right flowing in the tenant. Though several submissions are advanced, it transpired that the tenant was enjoying the toilet facility at the first floor. 3. There are allegations that the landlord being vociferous and keen for getting the property developed, desires to illegally evict the tenant and in the boom of such exercise, the landlord has discovered nefarious ways to harass the tenant. Though this may be a factual situation, this Court need not travel to that area. 4. Another contention raised on behalf of the landlord is, the petition, as a whole was in terms of Section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 while the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division treated the same to be under Section 14 and passed the impugned order for so called restoration of amenities. Counsel for the landlord submits, an error that has been committed is rightly corrected by the learned District Judge and consequently, there should not be any interference in the fact findings recorded by the learned District Judge. 5. There is no quarrel that if a Court and appellate Court reach to a particular fact, it need not be disturbed. However, if the fact itself is coloured with perversity and erroneous assumption, it certainly calls for interference. This is 3 such a case where interference is warranted. The reasons are obvious and as under : 6. The nomenclature in the petition even if specifies Section 29, however, the pleadings and the notice dated 2.12.2000 illustrate what was running in the mind of the tenant to seek restoration of the amenities which was certainly in tune and bracket of Section 14 of the above Act. 7. The user of toilet by the tenant cannot be as a concession or a good gesture by the landlord. Such submission is intangible and cannot be comprehended. The contention that the tenant and the other tenants are using the premises without toilet by adhering to a public toilet situate at far off, is again unconceivable. No evidence has been tendered by landlord to set up this stand. 8. Since the evidence of the landlord and also the tenant is analysed by the learned trial Judge and found dilapidation to the staircase has become detrimental to user of the toilet block, and particularly the tenant has two school going kids, who will be posed to a danger of life, I do not see any error in it. It was indeed an obligation cast on the landlord to keep the premises in proper user. However, since the landlord has designs to take recourse of harassing the tenant, he is not complying the obligations cast on him. 4 9. The observations of the learned District Judge while reversing the well reasoned judgment of the learned lower Court needs to be considered. Learned District Judge was also conscious, scope of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, which contemplate obligation of the landlord to keep the premises in good and tenantable repair. Section 14 contemplate, if the landlord neglects to make any repairs within any reasonable time after notice of 15 days, then such a tenant is entitled to make repairs in terms of the said Section. Though the learned Judge has recorded that there is a difference between Section 14 and 29, however, the learned District Judge failed to consider the pleadings, prayers and evidence as a whole. He should have construed that the petition will be within the bracket and frame of Section 14 even if it is referred to be in terms of Section 29 of the Act. Learned District Judge erred in castigating the tenant as stated in paragraph No.15 of the order. The observations of the learned Judge in paragraph No.16 also calls for interference. 10. During the course of submission, the learned counsel for the tenant informed, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the toilet block is to be repaired, the tenant shall carry the same at his costs and shall not claim any adjustment from the landlord. This statement projects the bonafide on the part of the tenant and also the urgency that is required to be attended to. 5 11. The learned counsel for the landlord criticised the delay, since the notice is of 2000, proceedings are initiated in 2003, no interim protection up to 2010 flows in favour of the tenant. Though these are the factual details, this will not mitigate and dilute right in prevalence in favour of the tenant to use the amenities. Delay by itself will not be taking away the facilities enjoyed by the tenant. 12. Taking survey of the facts, I find that the learned District Judge erred in rejecting the contention of the tenant. The revision application calls for interference. In the light of the above statement of learned counsel for the tenant, following order is passed. 13. The tenant shall carry repairs to the toilet block and staircase at his cost. It will not be in infringement to the Municipal Rules and it shall not be a nuisance to other occupants. The tenant shall not claim any costs/ damages for such repairs to the toilet block and staircase. Civil Revision Application allowed to the extent as above. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cra58.10