RAMCHANDER NARSEY & CO. Vs. WAMANRAO SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Chhaya, learned Counsel for the appellant formulated three questions for decision in this appeal by special leave and those are (1) the appellate court erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to give the appellant the benefit oi Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for brevity sake to be hereinafter referred to as the Act); (2) the notice of ejectment issued under Section 12(2) of the Act is invalid and (3) the transferee-landlord was not entitled to take advantage of the default in the payment of rent to the transferor-landlord.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are these. The 1st respondent was the owner of the suit premises. The appellant was the tenant under him in respect of the same. The case of the 1st respondent is that the appellant defaulted in the payment of rent from the year 1950. The 1st respondent issued to the appellant an ejectment notice on December 12, 1955. The ejectment of the appellant was sought on various grounds but at present we are concerned with only one of them namely failure to pay the rent due for more than six months. In his reply the appellant pleaded that the standard rent of the premises is much less than the rent fixed under the contract and the rent payable has been duly discharged in accordance with the adjustment put forward therein. Though the appellant raised the dispute as regards the standard rent payable he did not file any application for fixation of standard rent till April 18, 1958. Respondent No. 1 filed the suit from which this appeal has arisen on August 4, 1958. During the pendency of the suit respondent No. 1 sold the suit premises to his wife, respondent No. 2 who was thereafter impleaded in the suit as supplemental 2nd plaintiff.

(3.) The trial court decreed the suit in favour of both the plaintiffs but the appellate court altered the same and gave a decree exclusively in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. The High Court summarily dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant. Thereafter this appeal was filed after obtaining special leave from this court.