The case centers around a property dispute concerning three rooms and an enclosed platform in Nashik. The plaintiff, Mohamudkhan Kadar Khan Pathan, claimed ownership of the suit premises following the death of the original owner, Hafizabi Kadar Khan Pathan, in 1974. The defendant, who was a tenant, allegedly failed to pay rent after Hafizabi's death, leading to legal proceedings for rent arrears and eviction.

Key Points:

• The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to vacate the premises and pay the outstanding rent.
• The defendant’s appeals were dismissed by the appellate courts, which upheld the original ruling, finding that the defendant had defaulted on rent payments despite receiving proper notices.
• The defendant argued that payments made to a co-owner or for municipal taxes should offset the rent owed, but the courts found these claims unsubstantiated.
• The defendant's failure to produce key evidence or examine witnesses further weakened his case.

Final Outcome:
The court consistently ruled in favor of the plaintiff, confirming that the defendant was in arrears of rent and upholding the eviction order.

1. Introduction
The case involves a property dispute over three rooms and an enclosed platform on the ground floor of Municipal House No. 3309 in Nashik. The dispute arose after the death of the original owner, Hafizabi Kadar Khan Pathan, in 1974, with the plaintiff claiming ownership and rent arrears from the tenant.

2. Background of the Case

• Ownership Claim: The plaintiff, Mohamudkhan Kadar Khan Pathan, claimed ownership of the suit premises after Hafizabi's death.
• Tenant's Alleged Default: The defendant, a tenant, allegedly failed to pay rent to the plaintiff, leading to a legal battle.

3. Court Proceedings

• Trial Court Decision: The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to vacate the property and pay the outstanding rent.
• Appeals: The defendant’s subsequent appeals were dismissed by the appellate courts, which upheld the trial court’s decision.

4. Key Issues and Arguments

• Notice of Rent Demand: The courts found that the defendant had received proper notice of the rent demand.
• Payment to Co-owner and Taxes: The defendant’s argument that payments made to a co-owner or for municipal taxes should offset the rent was rejected due to lack of evidence.
• Examination of Witness: The defendant failed to produce a key witness, Abdul Gani Khan, and did not request an adjournment for his examination.

5. Court’s Rationale and Findings

• Default in Rent Payment: The courts consistently found that the defendant defaulted on rent payments from January 1975 onwards.
• Failure to Produce Evidence: The defendant did not produce any documentary evidence of payment to the co-owner and did not deposit the arrears of rent in court during the pendency of the suit.

6. Legal Provisions Applied

• Bombay Rent Act, Section 12(3)(a): The court applied this section to conclude that the defendant’s failure to pay rent warranted eviction.
• No Discretionary Relief: The courts emphasized that the defendant’s failure to comply with legal requirements left no room for discretionary relief.

7. Conclusion
The courts consistently ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming that the defendant was in arrears of rent and confirming the eviction order. The defendant’s attempts to offset rent with tax payments and payments to a co-owner were not substantiated, and his failure to deposit rent during the trial further justified the eviction.