RAMAN BHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL Vs. RADHESHYAM MADANLAL AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the petitioner herein - original defendant to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and decree dated 31/08/1998 passed by learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Surat in Small Causes Suit No.98 of 1984 as well as the impugned judgement and order dated 31/12/1999 passed by learned Assistant Judge, District Court, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No.71 of 1998, by which, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner herein -original defendant confirming the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit and passing eviction decree against the petitioner herein - original defendant -tenant.

(2.) That the respondents herein -original plaintiffs -landlord instituted Small Causes Suit No.98 of 1984 against the petitioner herein -original defendant - tenant before learned Small Causes Court, Surat for eviction decree/recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of rent for more than six months. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the petitioner herein - original defendant was tenant of the suit premises at the monthly rent of Rs.50/ - and standard rent of suit premises was fixed at the rate of Rs.50/ - per month. That the original defendant - tenant committed breach of condition of tenancy and did not pay the rent regularly and become tenant in arrears of rent for more than six months from 1982. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that though statutory notice as required under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act was issued upon the original defendant, the petitioner herein - original defendant - tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the statutory notice. However, he raised the false dispute of standard rent despite the fact that in earlier proceedings in the year 1976 the standard rent was fixed by the concerned Court at the rate of Rs.50/ - per month. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that dispute of standard rent raised by the original defendant is not bonafide. Therefore, it was requested to pass eviction decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. That the suit was resisted by original defendant -tenant by filing written statement and by submitting that he was always ready and willing to pay rent. It was the case on behalf of the original defendant -tenant that he replied to the statutory notice within a period of one month and also raised dispute with respect to standard rent. Learned Trial Court framed issues at Exh.15 and on appreciation of evidence learned Trial Court held that as standard rent dispute is already decided in the year 1976 deciding standard rent at the rate of Rs.50/ - per month, dispute raised by the original defendant in reply to the statutory notice, cannot be said to be bonafide and, therefore, learned Trial Court passed eviction decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree passed by learned Small Causes Court, Surat in Small Causes Suit No.98 of 1984 in decreeing the suit, the petitioner herein -original defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.71 of 1998 before learned Assistant Judge, District Court, Surat and learned Assistant Judge, District Court, Surat by impugned judgement and order dated 31/12/1999 dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and orders passed by both the Courts below in passing eviction decree against the petitioner herein -original defendant for arrears of rent for more than six months under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, the petitioner herein -original defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Application u/S.29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.