1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1389 OF 1992 Ganpati Dharmappa Udgatti .. Petitioner versus Ramchandra Govind Ambekar (since deceased) through legal heirs .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.1390 OF 1992 Ganpati Dharmappa Udgatti .. Petitioner versus Bapu Govind Ambekar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Y.A.Sakhare i/by M/s.YKS Legal for the petitioner in both the petitions. Mr.P.M.Pradhan for respondent Nos.1a and 1b in Writ Petition No.1389/92. Mr.P.M.Pradhan for respondent Nos.2a and 2b in Writ Petition No.1390/92. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23rd February 2010. JUDGMENT: . With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to briefly refer to the facts of the case. For the sake of convenience , the parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the trial Court. 2. The suit relates to suit premises described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The 2 suit premises is a room admeasuring 15 ft X 12 ft more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. According to the case of plaintiff, the suit premises was let out to the defendant at the rate of Rs.27/- per month. The case made out in the plaint is that the defendant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1st October 1975. A notice of demand was issued on 7th February 1978. The notice was received by the defendant and he replied to the notice on 23rd March 1978. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. It was contended that originally the rent in respect of suit premises was Rs.10/- per month. He contended that there is a dispute between the plaintiff and his brother Bapu in respect of the larger property in which the suit premises are situated and the defendant has been regularly paying rent to Bapu and the said Bapu has issued rent receipts. It is stated in the written statement that the defendant has filed application for fixation of standard rent. 3. The suit as well as the application for standard rent filed by the defendant were tried together. The trial Court decreed the suit and passed a decree for possession. The standard rent regarding the said suit premises was fixed at the rate of Rs.27/- per month. An appeal was preferred by the defendant before the District Court for challenging the decree for eviction. A revision application was preferred by the defendant for challenging the order passed on application for fixation of standard rent. The revision application as well as the appeal was dismissed by the common judgment and order. Writ Petition No.1389 of 1992 has been preferred by the defendant for challenging the decree of eviction and Writ Petition No.1390 of 1992 has been filed for challenging the order passed on the 3 application for standard rent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant submitted that within one month from the date of receipt of notice of demand ,an application for fixing standard rent was filed by the petitioner and as per the order passed by the trial Court, rent amounts have been regularly and punctually deposited with the trial Court. He submitted that notice itself was not valid and therefore there was no occasion to pass a decree. He submitted that the standard rent ought to have been fixed at the rate of Rs.10/- per month. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgments and orders. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The arrears claimed in the demand notice were for the period between 1st October 1975 to 31st March 1978. The rent receipts at Exhibits 59 to 61 show that the petitioner paid rent to respondent up to September 1975. The trial Court has referred to a letter of the petitioner at Exhibit 57 in which he admitted the ownership of the respondent. The date of the letter is 1st July 1975 and thereafter till September 1975 the petitioner paid rent to the respondent. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on alleged rent receipts issued by Bapu and money orders which were sent to Bapu. The trial Court has recorded a finding of fact that, both, the rent receipts and money orders coupens have not been proved. Importantly, said Bapu was not examined. The trial Court has referred to the fact that the signatures on receipts at Exhibits 20/4 to 20/8 of Bapu were identified by the respondent in cross- examination. However, the trial Court observed that when the title of the 4 respondent was accepted by the petitioner by a letter dated 1st July 1975 at Exhibit 57 , thereafter there was no occasion for him to pay the rent to the respondent’s brother. In fact after receiving the said letter, rent for a period of three months was paid by the petitioner to the respondent. 6. As far as order passed on application for standard rent is concerned, on 27th March 1978 the trial Court fixed the interim rent at Rs.27/- per month which was the contractual rent according to the respondent. The petitioner wants to take benefit of explanation 1 to section 12(3) of the said Act. The trial Court has considered the said aspect. The trial Court has referred to deposits of various amounts made by the petitioner in terms of the interim order passed on the application for fixing standard rent. The trial Court found that in case of number of deposits there was a shortfall and the rent of Rs.27/- was not fully deposited but certain amount was deducted from the rent amount towards water and light charges. So the clear finding of fact is that the petitioner failed and neglected to regularly deposit interim standard rent of Rs.27/- per month in terms of the interim order passed in the standard rent application. 7. The Appellate Court also recorded a finding on the basis of payment of rent by the petitioner to the respondent that the petitioner accepted the status of the respondent as the landlord. The finding of fact is that the interim rent has not been deposited regularly and punctually. There are number of defaults committed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to relief against forfeiture under clause (b) of section 12(3) of the said Act. 5 8. As far as fixation of the standard rent is concerned, the basic contention of the petitioner was that initially the agreed rent was Rs.10/- per month. The Courts below and in particular trial Court observed that there was no evidence placed on record to show that the rent was Rs.10/- per month. The only document which could be produced was extract of assessment list of the local authority which referred to rent of Rs.10/-. The trial Court observed that rent receipt showing payment of Rs.10/- per month has not been produced and in fact the petitioner paid rent at the rate of Rs.27/- per month in 1975. In absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioner, the trial Court recorded a finding that the standard rent was Rs.27/- per month which was the contractual rent. 9. It is, therefore, not possible to find fault in writ jurisdiction in the decree of eviction and order fixing standard rent at Rs.27/- per month. There is no merit in the petitions. The petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)