CHHANABHAI MARGHABHAI Vs. MAHANT HARIDAS GURU PANCHAMDASJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application has been preferred by the respondent-defendant under section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Rent Act"] against the judgment and order dated 7/08/1987 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Nadiad in Civil Appeal No. 175 of 1983.

(2.) The plaintiff is the sole trustee and the administrator of a Public Charitable Trust known as Kabirpanthi Trust [hereinafter referred to as, "the Trust"]. The Trust owns certain property in the town of Nadiad. Two of the rooms of the said property bearing municipal census nos. 1134/10 and 1134/11 were leased to one Ambalal Desaibhai for a monthly rent of Rs. 12/=. The ward of the tenant Ambalal, the defendant no. 1 and the mother of the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 2, were residing in the suit rooms with the said tenant Ambalal Desaibhai. Though the defendants were not the members of the family of the said Ambalal, they continued to occupy the suit rooms for their residence after the death of the said Ambalal. On 9/10/1974, the Trust gave the defendants a notice of demand as envisaged under section 12 (2) of the Rent Act. In the said notice, the Trust mentioned that the defendants were given the last warning; that the defendants were in arrears of rent since 6/05/1973, and that the monthly rent was Rs. 12/=. The suit notice [Exh. 66] was answered by the defendants by reply dated 15th October,1974 [Exh. 69]. It was denied that the defendant no. 2 was not the wife of the deceased Ambalal Desaibhai. It was claimed that the defendant no. 2 was the wife of the deceased Ambalal Desaibhai and was entitled to claim tenancy in the suit rooms. The defendant no. 1 being son of the defendant no. 2, was entitled to claim tenancy in the suit rooms. It was denied that the defendants were in arrears of rent. It was stated that the defendants had paid the rent, however, no receipt was issued to them. The defendants did not pay the rent demanded under the suit notice Exh. 66. The Trust instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 476 of 1978 in the court of Civil Judge [JD], Nadiad. The trust prayed for recovery of possession of the suit rooms and a sum of Rs. 432/= being the amount of rent due. The claim for a sum of Rs. 354/= being the outstanding amount of rent was not made since the same was time-barred. Pending the suit, the defendants deposited a sum of Rs. 432/= claimed in the plaint in the Court on 5/12/1978. Since then, the defendants deposited the monthly rent in the Court regularly. However, it should be noted that the defendants did not deposit the sum of Rs. 354/=, the time barred amount of rent due.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement Exh. 20. It was asserted that the defendant no. 2 was the wife of the deceased defendant-Ambalal Desaibhai. It was denied that the rent was due since 6/05/1973.