Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. On 22nd December, 1952 the petitioners filed Misc. Application No. 963 and 964 for fixation of standard rent of the premises. Both the applications were decided on 2/9/1955. Therefore, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 285/- per month. The petitioner filed an Inter Pleader Suit No. 384 of 1969 on 2/4/1969. The said suit was decided on 27/2/1980. In the meantime, in that interpleader suit, the petitioners, to avoid further complications and until the decision of the matter in respect of ownership or the liability of the tenant to make the payment to the particular landlord, made regular deposits in the Court. By 7th December, 1977 the tenant had deposited Rs. 47297. The petitioner has regularly made payments to the Corporation, towards the taxes, as contemplated under Section 140 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. As the Court Receiver was appointed in respect of the suit property, by the demand notice Exh.33, dated 7/12/1977 the Court Receiver terminated the tenancy on the ground of defaulter and also called upon the petitioner tenant to pay the arrears of rent, education cess amounting to Rs. 53085.65. On 4/7/1979 the Court Receiver filed Civil Suit No. 1521 of 1979 in the Court of Small causes, Pune, against the petitioner for possession of the suit premises and to recover the arrears of rent and education cess. The learned Trial Judge, after considering the material on the record held that the notice of demand was not legal and valid. The petitioner was not defaulter, and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to claim the possession of the suit premises in question. However, it was ordered that the petitioner-tenant paid Rs. 15515/- with the proportionate cost of the suit to the Receiver towards the arrears of rent and education cess. It was also ordered that the monetary part of the decree be first executed against the deposit of the rent by the defendant in the Interpleader Suit No. 384/69.

Page 164

6. In view of undisputed position on the record there was interpleader suit pending, till 1980. In the said interpleader suit, petitioner admittedly, deposited the rent upto 7/12/1977 to the extent of Rs. 47296/-. There is no further dispute about the payment of corporation taxes by the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 17574.70. Therefore, in all total deposit on the record at the relevant time was 64,870,70. The demand notice dated 7/12/1977, in this background for the arrears of rent from 3/4/1968 to 31/12/1977 amounting to Rs. 24,515, arrears of rent from 1/1/1973 to 30/11/1977 amounting to Rs. 25370/- along with education cess totalling to Rs. 53,085.65, as claimed, appears to be incorrect. The requirement of law is, that the tenant must pay the rent regularly. The readiness and willingness of the tenant must reflect his bonafide need. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, of interpleader suit, in question, itself, demonstrate so called dispute between the parties. In this background, if the tenant chose to file and or deposit the rent, in the Court, in the interpleader suit proceeding and as recorded above, it cannot be said that the tenant was not ready and willing to make the payment regularly. The bonafide of the tenant can be gathered from the fact that on the record, the amount to the extent of Rs. 47297 have been deposited in the Court from time to time.

7. The liability of the occupier to make the payment of Municipal taxes, as contemplated under the Act is also another facet, which goes in favour of the tenant. The tenant-occupier, if makes payment regularly to the corporation, and in the present case there is an interpleader suit pending, the said taxes being paid by the tenant, in absence of any agreement, to the contrary, needs to be taken into consideration while considering the demand notice dated 7/12/1977 in question. Apart from the ground for recovery of the possession on that foundation, the petitioner has already deposited with the Corporation the taxes to the extent of Rs. 17574/-. The demand of taxes in the said notice, is also not correct. The notice in this background, cannot be said to be valid notice for the purpose of consideration of eviction, as contemplated in the Act.

8. If this, with the above finding is taken note of which is borne out from the record, I am of the view that the reasoning given by the trial Court is correct. In so far as, dismissal of the suit of recovery of the respondent on the ground of arrears of rent, by the appellate Court, according to me is incorrect in reversing the trial Court's judgment. The following reasoning given by the trial Court, according to me are sufficient to allow the present petition.

"The Nazir's report (Exh.112) produced by the defendant in Civil Suit No. 3309/1968 shows the deposit of the rent amounting to Rs. 62,696/-in the said suit by the defendant. In the Judgment, the Civil Court has held that the Receiver appointed by the High Court is entitled to withdraw the rent deposited by the defendant. By the demand notice Exh.33 dated 7/12/1977, the plaintiff has called upon the defendant to pay the total Rs. 53,085.65 Whereas the defendant has deposited total Rs. 62,686/- in the interpleader suit and paid Rs. 18,374.70 in the Corporation. Needless to say that the defendant has deposited much more amount than demanded by the plaintiff. The crucial question is whether the defendant was at all Page 165 in arrears of rent as claimed by the Plaintiff vide demand notice (Exh.33) dated 7/12/1977. As I have already pointed above vide demand notice the plaintiff has demanded the arrears of rent from 3/4/1968 to 30/11/1977 total amounting to Rs. 49,880/-and education cess of Rs. 3205.65 total Rs. 53,085.65 from the defendant. Till 7/12/1977 the defendant had paid total Rs. 17,574.70 in the Corporation towards the taxes and deposited total Rs. 47,296/- in the interpleader suit No. 384.69. The total of the (2) deposits i.e. in the Corporation and in the interpleader suit will till 7/12/1977 comes to Rs. 64,870/-. It is evident that the defendant has thus, deposited the amount in much excess than the demand in the Corporation as well as in the interpleader suit. In view of the said position, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that on the date of the notice, the defendant was in arrears of rent much less at claimed by the plaintiff vide demand notice (Exh.33) dated 7/12/1977. Under the circumstances the plaintiff's demand notice was in fact, unwarranted and uncalled for".