KANTILAL NANCHAND SHETH Vs. JERAMDAS VAJUBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act (for short "the Act") challenging the non-concurrent judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. The respondent - tenant has been served, but neither he is present nor any counsel has been engaged by him. As such Shri Mehul S. Shah for the revisionist has been heard and the Judgments of the two courts below and the relevant materials on record were examined.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this revision are as under : The demised property consisting of one room on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor were let out by the revisionist to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs.45.00. In the plaint it was stated that this was also the standard rent, but in the notice of demand it was not mentioned that this was the standard rent, rather it was stated in the notice that it was contractual rate of rent. In addition to this, under the Agreement the respondent was to pay Rs.3.00 per month towards electricity charges. Rent and electricity charges upto 9.1.1974 were paid by the respondent and since 10.1.1974 Rs.960.00 became due towards rent and electricity charges. Notice of demand was sent on 22.9.1975, which was served on the tenant. The tenant respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent within one month of service of notice of demand and also failed to raise dispute of standard rent in the reply notice sent within a month of service of notice of demand. Consequently the Suit for eviction of the respondent and for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit, electricity charges and expenses for serving notice, etc. was filed.

(3.) The tenant's plea in the written statement was that the agreed rent was Rs.13.00 p.m. He did not raise dispute regarding electricity charges at Rs.3.00 p.m. The extent of accommodation let out to him was also not disputed by him. It was, however, pleaded that the rent from 10.1.1975 was sent by Money Order which was refused by the landlord. In this view of the matter it was pleaded that the tenant did not commit default in payment of rent and that the landlord was not issuing receipts for payment of rent. In the written statement, for the first time, dispute of standard rent was raised and according to the respondent even Rs.13.00 p.m. was excessive rent and the standard rent was less than this amount.