(1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) Shantabai, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, instituted a suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act) for possession of the suit premises against the appellants-tenants, The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court. This appeal, by the tenants, is against the judgment of the High Court.
(3.) The suit premises was rented to the appellants for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 70. The rent was, later on, increased to Rs. 80. The landlady served a notice dated 28-7-1972 terminating the appellants' tenancy on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement by her. It was mentioned in the notice that arrears of rent from 1-4-1971 were due from the tenants. As far as the bona fide requirement is concerned the trial Court rejected the case of the landlady. On the issue of arrears of rent the trial Court negatived the contention of the landlady that the tenants neglected to pay the rent for more than six months. The trial Court, however, held that the case of the landlady was covered under section 12(3)(b) of the Act and since the tenants failed to comply with the said provisions they were liable to evicted. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the bona fide requirement was not proved by the landlady. On the issue of arrears it was held that the landlady, having failed to prove that the tenants neglected to pay rent for more than six months, neither the provisions of section 12(3)(a) nor of section 12(3)(b) of the Act were attracted and as such the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal the original landlady died and her legal heirs were brought on record.