Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Being aggrieved by the above decree, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1981. The Appeal Court framed the necessary points, namely, whether the monthly rent was Rs. 50 and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to decree under section 12(3)(a) of the said Rent Act. The Appeal Court also considered the tenant's case of payment of Rs. 30,000/- for the construction of the Church. The entire evidence inclusive of the receipts and the counterfoils was considered by the Appeal Court and on appreciation of the entire material on record, it came to the conclusion that the notice of termination of tenancy was valid and that the monthly rent was Rs. 50/-. Since the tenant was in arrears as alleged and since he had not taken any steps for raising a dispute as to standard rent under section 11(3) and for deposit of the standard rent and permitted increases as contemplated by section 12(3)(b), it was held, that the landlords were entitled to a decree for possession under section 12(3)(a) of the said Rent Act.

13. This petition was admitted on 2nd March, 1984 and the final hearing started yesterday. I have heard all the learned Counsel, namely, Shri Rane for the petitioners, heirs of the tenant Shri Dalvi for the first four respondents and Shri Sawant for the fifth respondent newly added party. Despite the concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, Shri Rane requested me to re-appreciate the evidence and in that endeavour took me through the oral and documentary evidence on record. As far as the oral evidence of the landlord namely evidence of P.W. 1 Edward Braganza at Ex. 32 is concerned, he has categorically stated that the rent was Rs. 50/- p.m. He has produced certain counterfoils at Ex. 33 and Ex. 34 which support has respondent's contention that the monthly rent was Rs. 50/-. Ex. 33 is the counterfoil of the receipt issued on 15th December, 1964 for Rs. 100/- which was the rent for October and November, 1964. Ex. 34 is the counterfoil of the receipt issued on 20th January, 1965 for Rs. 100/- towards the rent for December, 1964 and January, 1965. Edward Braganza denied the tenant's case that Rs. 30,000/- was paid to the Trust for purchase of the property. Though this witness has been cross-examined at length, there is nothing in the cross-examination which militates against the truthfulness of his version in the examination-in-chief. An attempt was made to criticise the evidence in the form of the two counterfoils at Exts. 33 and 34 on the ground that they do not bear the signature of the tenant. I am not much impressed by this criticism.