Madhusudan Rajeshwar Malvi vs Mandakini Bhauravji Kamble Since ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 357 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.G. Mahajan, J.

1. By this miscellaneous civil application the applicant, who is the original revision-petitioner is Civil Revision Application No. 402 of 2002, is seeking review of the judgment & order passed by this Court on 16th August, 2002 in the said revision application.

2. The applicant is the tenant and the non-applicants are the L.Rs. of the deceased landlady. By the notice dated 26-5-1994 the landlady terminated the tenancy of the applicant/tenant with effect from the midnight of 10-7-1994 and 11-7-1994. The landlady thereafter filed a suit for recovery of possession, being Small Causes Suit No. 59/94, in the Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Yavatmal held that the notice issued by the landlady was valid. He accordingly passed the decree for the recovery of possession and for payment of damages & mesne profits. The applicant/tenant thereupon preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1997 which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Yavatmal. The learned Additional District Judge, Yavatmal upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the decision, the applicant/tenant filed the aforesaid Civil Revision Application No. 402/2002.

3. By order dated 16th August, 2002 this Court dismissed the revision. It was observed that the revision application challenges the concurrent orders and judgments passed by the courts below holding termination of tenancy of the applicant as legal and valid. It was held that no interference was called for in the revision as there was no jurisdictional error committed by any of the Courts below.

4. The submission of the applicant in this review petition is twofold. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the quit notice issued by the landlady does not actually terminate the tenancy with effect from the end of tenancy month. In the second place, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, the admission of the witness examined by the landlady shows that the landlady has accepted the rent from the applicant/tenant even for the further period after the termination of tenancy. As per the learned Counsel the landlady has therefore, waived the notice issued by her terminating the tenancy.

5. The learned Counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the recitals in the quit notice issued by the landlady wherein it was stated by her that she did not want the applicant to continue as a tenant onwards. As per the learned Counsel for applicant, these recitals indicate that the landlady wanted to terminate the tenancy of the applicant immediately on the date on which the quit notice was issued and not with effect from the end of the tenancy month. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the applicant cited Yerrabhothula Krishna Murthy and others v. Addepalli Subha Rao, . In this cited case the tenancy was terminated with effect from the earlier date. The wording of the notice was that the tenancy is "hereby terminated". It was held that the notice was invalid.

6. It is not possible for me to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant. The notice has to be read as a whole. Although the landlady has disclosed her intention of not continuing the applicant as a tenant onwards, it is merely the intention of the landlady not to continue the tenancy. But the tenancy is not terminated with immediate effect and the actual termination of tenancy made by her vide aforesaid notice is with effect from the midnight of 10-7-1994 and 11-7-1994 i.e. with effect from the end of tenancy month. It is also further stated in the said notice that after 11-7-1994 the possession of the applicant would be unauthorised and illegal and he would be liable to pay damages @ Rs. 600/- per month for the further period. The authority cited by the Counsel for the applicant has no application to the present case.

7. The next ground raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant during the arguments that the landlady has accepted the rent for the further period also, thereby waiving quit notice, is not raised by the applicant in this application. However, since the learned Counsel has argued the point, I think it appropriate to adjudicate upon the same. The Counsel for the applicant invited the attention of this Court to the version of the witness examined by the landlady, viz. Bhaurao Kamble in para No. 13 wherein he admitted that the present applicant sent the rent for each month from August, 1994 by Money Order but the landlady refused to accept the money order. The witness further stated that the rent previous to that was accepted by hand delivery. The learned Counsel argued that this admission suggests that the landlady had accepted the rent for the month of July. It may be noted that the month of tenancy was commencing on 11th of each month and used to end on 10th of next month. So even if the version of the witness carries the meaning that the landlady had accepted the rent for the month of July, it is implied that it was accepted for the period up to 10-7-1994, because the rent from 11-7-1994 to 10-8-1994 would be for the month of August, 1994 which was refused by the landlady. The version of the witness cannot be interpreted to mean that the landlady had accepted the rent for the further period after termination of the tenancy.

8. In the above view of the matter there is absolutely no substance in the review application. The same deserves to be dismissed.

The review application is dismissed.

9. The learned Counsel for applicant requests that the interim stay granted earlier by this Court in this review application may be continued for next three weeks so as to enable the applicant to search out other premises and to shift there, as the children of the applicant are taking education.

10. The learned Counsel for the non-applicants opposes the request on the ground that the matter is pending since 1994. I am inclined to grant time to the applicant, up to 31st March, 2003, for vacating the premises.

11. Time is granted to the applicant to vacate the premises up to 31st March, 2003.