GAURISHANKAR CHHITARMAL GUPTA Vs. GANGABAI TOKERSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, by the tenant of a residential building, is directed against the order of the Bombay High Court dated January 9/10, 1967 in Civil Revision Application No. 888 of 1965.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in holding that the respondent landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the appellant on the ground that the latter had failed to pay the standard rent including the permitted increases for over a period of six months. Incidentally the question also arises whether the notice issued by the respondent on June 15, 1955 is a valid one under Section 12 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act 57 of 1947), (hereinafter to be referred as the Rent Act). The facts in so far as they are material are as follows:

(3.) It will be noted that in this notice the respondent claimed arrears of rent including the amount of increment in municipal taxes and that the total amount per month was at Rs. 52/9/6. Claim by way of arrears of rent including the increments in municipal taxes was for a period of five months from December 1, 1954 to April 30, 1955 and compensation was further claimed for one month The appellant again sent a reply through his counsel on July 1, 1955. In this reply he had stated that the claim contained in the notice dated June 15, 1955 was very much in excess of what was actually due by him. It was further stated that the monthly rent of the premises was only Rs. 45/- and that the municipal tax recoverable was also only Rs. 2/13/- per month.. He, however, admitted that from April 1, l954 there was an addition to the rent according to law, but he stated that he has paid rent at Rs. 48/2/9 including all taxes from April 1, 1954. Admitting that he was in arrears of rent with all charges from December 1, 1954, he stated that he was prepared to remit the dues till June, 1955 though the demand was only for the period ending May, 1955. It was further stated that a cheque for Rs. 337/3/3 representing the arrears at Rs. 48/2/9 for seven months from December 1, 1954 to June 30, 1955 was also being enclosed along with the reply. It is seen from the further letter sent by the respondent on July 12 1955 that the cheque, received along with the reply, was dishonoured. In consequence the appellant was again called upon to remit the amount as per the notice of June 15, 1955 together with an additional sum of Rs. 52/9/6 as compensation for the month of June, 1955. The appellant again replied on July 21, 1955 requesting the respondent to return the cheque and promising to send the amount in cash. The appellant has further stated in his reply that the amount claimed as due till the end of June, 1955 was excessive and illegal.