EDWARD WASHING CO Vs. BAI AMMABEN SULEMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application preferred under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') arises from the judgment and order dated 15th September, 1983 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot in Civil Appeal No.422/1980. The petitioner before this Court is the appellant - defendant.

(2.) The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') is the owner of a residential building named 'Arif Manzil' situated at Rajkot. Part of the ground floor of the said building (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') was given on rent of Rs.75=00 per month to the defendant - petitioner Company for residence of its Manager. It appears that the defendant was in arrears of rent since the month of May, 1975 till November, 1977. The plaintiff gave notice on 16th December, 1977 raising a demand of Rs.2,325=00 being the arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. The said notice was not responded to by the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted Rent Suit No.949/1979 (old Rent Suit No.1390/1978) in the Court of Small Causes, Rajkot.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement Ex.12. In the said written statement the defendant raised dispute as regards the standard rent of the suit premises. The trial Court, under its judgment and order dated 28/10/1980, was pleased to hold that defendant was the tenant of the suit premises on monthly rent and was in arrears of rent for more than six months. That in answer to the suit notice the defendant had not raised dispute as to the standard rent within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice and that the defendant neglected to make payment of arrears of rent until the expiration of the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the suit notice. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, of the opinion that the case was squarely covered by Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. However, the learned trial Judge also examined whether the defendant was entitled to protection as envisaged under Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. Even then the learned Judge has found that even after the date of the suit the defendant did not deposit the arrears of rent by the first day of hearing of the suit i.e. on the date the issues were framed. A part of the arrears of rent i.e. a sum of Rs.1,950=00 was deposited in the Court on 23/10/1980 i.e. at the fag end of the trial; a few days before the date of the decree. Thus, the defendant not being entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act either, the learned trial Judge passed decree for eviction and of arrears of rent and the mesne profits. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No.422/1980 in the District Court, Rajkot. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Assistant Judge, Rajkot on 1 5/09/1983. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the present Revision Application.