HARDASMAL G ROCHLANI Vs. HEAD MISTRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revisions filed under the provisions of section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act at the instance of the original landlords who had sued the tenants for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) These two revisions can be conveniently dealt with together inasmuch as the landlords in both the matters are the same, and had filed two separate suits inasmuch as separate properties are involved. Moreover, the defendants (original tenants) in the two suits were also the same viz. Jetpur Taluka Panchayat.

(3.) The landlords had filed both the suits on the same grounds viz. that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months, that the tenant was guilty of unlawful subletting within the meaning of section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act and that the tenant had erected a permanent structure on the leased premises without the permission of the landlord and was therefore liable to be evicted under section 13(1)(b) of the said Act.