FIRM OF HARBANSLAL JAGMOHANDAS Vs. PRABHUDAS SHIVLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both these applications have taken on lease the ground floor portion of property in Ward No. V Nondh No. 1088 of Surat. The respondent became the owner of the said property by purchasing it from the previous owner by a registered sale deed dated September 18, 1958. The petitioners who were the tenants of the premises even prior to the date of purchase by the respondent, have continued to be his tenants and they are using the premises for their business purpose. The respondent landlord filed on February 12, 1967 a Civil Suit No. 144 of 1967 in the Court of the Third Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Surat for evicting the petitioners.

(2.) According to the landlord the petitioners had not paid the rent for a period of over six months and had also not complied with the notice issued under Section 12 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Act 57 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Bombay Rent Act). The respondent had alleged that he had terminated the tenancy of the petitioners by notice dated November 24. l966. The respondent sought eviction of the petitioners on two grounds, namely, (1) default in payment of rent, and (2) premises being required for bona fide personal use and occupation.

(3.) The petitioners contested the suit on various grounds and denied that they were in arrears and pleaded that they had raised a dispute in respect of the standard rent within the time allowed by law. They also contended that the landlord's requirement for use and occupation was not bona fide. Both the trial court as well as the Appellate Court the Extra Assistant Judge, Surat, have concurrently rejected the plea of the respondent that he required the premises bona fide for personal use. Both the courts held that the petitioners have not raised any dispute about the standard rent within one month of service of suit notice either by preferring a standard rent application or by sending a reply to the suit notice raising such a dispute. On this basis both the Courts held that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act and accordingly passed an order directing eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises.