UMAR ABDUL MEMON Vs. MAHAMADBHAI KASAMBHAI SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicant -original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court -learned Assistant Judge, Vadodara dated 23/06/1998 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 26/1997 by which the learned appellate Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent -original defendant -tenant by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court -learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court at Vadodara dated 17/06/1996 in Rent Suit No. 510/1998 by which the learned trial Court passed the eviction decree against the respondent -original defendanttenant on the ground of arrears of rent for more than six months i.e. under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) The applicant -original plaintiff instituted Rent Suit No. 510/1988 against the respondent -original defendant -tenant in the Small Cause Court, Vadodara for recovery of possession/eviction decree on the ground that the respondentoriginal defendant -tenant is in arrears of rent for more than six months and the case would fall under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was the case on behalf of the applicantoriginal plaintiff that the respondent -original defendant -tenant was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 70/ - per month from 01/06/1985 to 31/08/1988. It was the case on behalf of the applicant -original plaintiff that despite the fact that the applicant -original plaintiff issued statutory notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act on dated 16/08/1988 the respondent -original defendant -tenant did not raise the dispute with respect to standard rent within one month by filing separate application and even did not deposit the entire arrears of rent and, therefore, the respondent -original defendant -tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and, therefore, it was requested to pass the eviction decree. Considering the documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court by impugned judgment and decree dated 17/06/1996 decreed the suit and passed the eviction decree against the respondent -original defendant -tenant under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act by observing that the respondent -original defendant -tenant has not raised the dispute with respect to standard rent within a period of one month and as such the dispute with respect to standard rent was raised for the first time on 02/12/1989 by submitting separate application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned trial Court also held that the respondent -original defendant -tenant has not deposited the entire arrears of rent within one month from the date of receipt of the statutory notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and, therefore, the case would fall under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act and, therefore, passed the eviction decree.

(3.) Shri Nilesh Pandya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant -original plaintiff -landlord has vehemently submitted that the learned appellate Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by which the learned trial Court passed the eviction decree against the respondent -original defendant -tenant under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.