He had filed an affidavit in the proceedings before the Rent Controller to which the appellant was a party.
In fact, the appellant had issued a numberice to the respondent tenant on 20th January, 1988 calling upon him to pay rent in respect of the suit premises.
As a result, an eviction application was filed by the appellant.
Besides the appellant, one Vishwanath Tandale also claimed his ownership over the suit shop.
The appellant then issued demand numberice to the respondent tenant on 17th March, 1988 calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent.
situated at Municipal house No.23/124/A, companyresponding to City Survey No.9572 in Cloth Lane, Latur, instituted an eviction application against the respondent tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and default within the meaning of Section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses Rent, Eviction, and Lease Control Act, 1954.
Briefly stated, the appellant, claiming to be landlord in respect of suit premises being shop admeasuring east west 12ft.
The District Court reversed the finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller.
Against this decision, the appellant preferred a revision application before the High Court.
and south north 16ft.
On the factum of willful default by the respondent tenant, the Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Rent Controller.
No reply was received from the respondent tenant.
That numberice was replied by the respondent tenant on 22nd February, 1988, raising a dispute of ownership of the suit premises.
Further, the appellant admitted in his evidence of having withdrawn the amount deposited in Court by the respondent tenant till Diwali 2003.
The Appellate Court found that the respondent tenant upon receipt of numberice from the appellant immediately approached the Rent Controller and deposited the amount towards rent as prescribed by the Rent Controller.
The District Court, accordingly, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent tenant and reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller.
Against that decision, the respondent tenant preferred a statutory appeal before the District Judge at Latur being Rent Appeal No.5 of 2005.
As regards the factum of denial of title by the respondent tenant, the Appellate Court held that the circumstances in which that plea was taken by the respondent tenant was bonafide companysidering the fact that the appellant landlord himself had admitted that the dispute regarding ownership of suit shop was the subject matter of the RCS No.1033 of 1983 filed by him before the Civil Court.
Accordingly, an eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller on 11th April, 2005.
Consequently, the eviction application filed by the appellant was dismissed.
The Rent Controller held that the respondent tenant had companymitted default and was liable to be evicted.
That suit was pending at the relevant time.
The High Court dismissed the revision application preferred by the appellant and thereby companyfirmed the decision of the District Court dismissing the eviction application preferred by the appellant.
The fact that the respondent tenant rushed to the Rent Controller immediately after receipt of numberice from the appellant, is indicative of a bonafide plea taken by the respondent tenant regarding dispute of ownership of the suit shop and a plea legitimately available to the respondent tenant.
This appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Civil Revision No.59 of 2007 dated 6th September, 2011.
It was the case of the appellant that the respondent tenant had failed and neglected to pay rent between October, 1987 till March, 1988.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. The application for early hearing is allowed.
Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith, by companysent.
