( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 686 OF 2002 Prabhakar s/o Gajanan Shere, R/o Naikwadpura, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shankar s/o Shambhu Mankar 2. Smt. Indubai Shankar Mankar Both r/o Naikwadpura, Sherewada, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. L.V. Sangeet, advocate holding for Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Shinde, advocate for respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th July, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgement and order rendered by learned IInd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Sangamner, in suit bearing R.C.S. No. 38/1987 and judgement and order dated 22-03-2001, rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Sangamner ( 2 ) in appeal (R.C.A. No. 348/2000). By the impugned judgements, the suit filed by the petitioner for eviction came to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner is landlord and the respondents are tenants in respect of a small room comprising of two (2) khans area out of municipal house No. 366 situated at Sangamner. Petitioner’s case before the trial Court was that the respondents agreed to pay rent at rate of Rs. 8/- per month alongwith permitted increases. Initially, the municipal tax of the house property was Rs. 301/- per annum which came to be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 563/- per annum. Though the respondents were duty bound to pay the increases, due to enhancement in the municipal tax, yet, they did not pay the same. They are willful defaulters w.e.f. 01-01-1984. By notice dated 26-02-1986, their tenancy was terminated due to the defaults in payment. They asserted, however, that they were not liable to pay the permitted increases. They further contended that they paid the rent from July, 1984 onwards by Money Order which he had refused to accept. They contended that they deposited the rent ( 3 ) in the bank account of the petitioner. They submitted that they were never the defaulters and as such, the notice of termination of the tenancy is invalid. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the first Appellate Court confirmed the decree for dismissal. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. There are concurrent findings of the two (2) Courts on question of default. Both the Courts have held that the petitioner failed to prove defaults committed by the respondents in respect of payment of the agreed rent and permitted increases. Though the petitioner asserted that the respondents committed defaults in payment of the rent, yet, this fact was not proved. It is pertinent to note that on 05-02-1986, notice was issued by the respondents/defendants calling upon the petitioner to accept the rent. It appears that the petitioner refused to accept the Money Order sent by the respondents. The money order coupon (Exh-39) shows that it was refused by the petitioner. PW Prabhakar ( 4 ) (petitioner) admitted that he refused to accept the money order sent by the respondents. It is important to notice that the respondents had given notice to the petitioner calling upon him to accept the rent. The findings of both the Courts would show that the respondents did not refuse to pay the rent as per the agreement. There is nothing on record to show that the permitted increases were made known to the respondents. The respondents deposited the entire arrears of the rent alongwith the demanded permitted increases in the Court. The petitioner did not file proceedings for fixation of standard rent in view of enhancement of municipal taxes. There appears no perversity from the judgements of both the Courts below. Considering these aspects, the petition is without much substance. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP686-02 ( 5 )