PANDYA RASIKLAL RANCHHODBHAI Vs. PUNJIBEN AMRATLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision application is directed against the impugned judgment and decree of eviction passed by the learned District Judge Baroda in Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1977 whereby the lower Appellate Court took the view that the decree of eviction must be passed against the petitioner tenant as he was a tenant who was not ready and willing to pay rent to the landlord. It may be stated that in this behalf in the original suit a decree for eviction was passed by the Additional Small Cause Judge Baroda in Small Cause Suit No. 10 of 1977 (old Regular Civil Suit No. 1313 of 1967).

(2.) . On a prior occasion this matter had come to the High Court in Civil Revision Application No 824 of 1971 whereby this court took the view that a decree under sec. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act could not have been passed but this was a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the trial Court with a direction to ascertain whether the defendant tenant was entitled to the protection of section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. The lower Appellate Court after the remand took the view that as the tenant did not deposit the rent regularly the tenant was not entitled to the protection of sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act.

(3.) . It is under these circumstances that the present civil revision application is filed by the tenant in this court and the same is placed for hearing before me.