1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. W.P.NO.5219 OF 2008. Smt. Suman Ramesh Patel and ors. ...vs.. Bhaurao Ganpatrao Thakre. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 17th JUNE, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.S.V.Bhutada, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.S.Sadavarte, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/original defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the civil judge (J.D.) and confirmed by the Additional District Judge. 3. The respondent/ori.petitioner had instituted a suit on the ground that the defendant has been in arrears of rent from 1971 and has not 2 paid the same despite the fact that notice as required under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was served upon the defendant. The learned Civil judge passed a decree and the respondent/ori.petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge concurred with the findings recorded by the court below and dismissed the appeal. 4. A decree has been passed under Section 15 of the Mah.Rent Control Act. 5. Mr.Bhutada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ori.defendants submits that the notice issued by the respondent itself was illegal in as much as the respondent had made an excess demand of the rent. He submits that the contention of the respondent that the petitioner/ori.deft. was in arrears of rent right from 1971 cannot be accepted. He submits that when so many suits were instituted and decrees were obtained, it is hard to believe that the amount under the decree was not recovered. He submits 3 that apparently, therefore, the notice as issued by the respondent is illegal. He relied on the decision reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. 436 (Ramchandra Appaji Manjage ..vs.. Mahavir Gajanan). In the said decision it has been held by the court that where there is a excess demand of rent, the notice is invalid. In the instant case, the notice cannot be said to be invalid as rightly held by the courts below. The respondent was required to institute the suit against the petitioner/ori.deft. and was required to obtain decrees. Not only the suits were instituted for recovery of rent but respondent had also filed proceedings before the rent Controller on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter and respondent was granted permission by the rent Controller on that ground. Since the permission was granted by the Rent Controller that the petitioner was defaulter itself suggests that the rent was not paid and the payment of the rent was irregular. It was contended that the court in fact must assume that when decrees were obtained they were so executed. It is for the judgment-debtor always to prove that the decree has been satisfied. 4 The fact that the petitioner/ori.deft. does not place before the court any documents suggesting payment of rent or decretal amount clearly goes to show that the rent was never paid or offered to the respondent. 6. It was also contended that the rent from 1971 was in fact a time bared amount and therefore could not have been demanded. The contention cannot be accepted. Section 15 of the Rent Control Act does not contemplate so. Section 15 says that whatever may be the arrears so claimed in the notice, they are required to be paid. The courts below have concurrently found that the arrears as demanded in the notice is not paid within ninety days upon service of the notice. In the circumstances I do not find that the courts below have fallen in error in decreeing the suit. There is no substance in the writ petition. Same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute