SUMRA UAKUB IBRAHIM Vs. LENGAY ABDULKARIM UMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regular Civil Suit No. 87 of 1976 was filed under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhuj for getting vacant possession of the suit premises. The indentity and the area of the suit premises not being in dispute, I will not enter into the details thereof.

(2.) The suit was based on the solitary ground of non-payment of rent for more than six months. The learned Trial Judge accepted the say of the tenant that he has not neglected to pay rent and he had held that the tenant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. Obviously, these two proportions are mutually exclusive if there is no neglect, there cannot be any question of the tenant being not ready and willing. The tenant carried matter by way of Appeal No. 144 of 1981 before the learned District Judge, Bhuj and the learned District Judge, Bhuj by his judgment dated 18th January 1986 corrected the position by dealing with the matter under the provision of Section 12(3)(A) of the Rent Act. The readyness and willingness is required to be considered if the case is following under the provision of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act and not otherwise. There was no dispute as to the Standard Rent and hence if an arrear is of more than six months is established the case will fall squarely within Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. The District Judge is, therefore, right in applying that provision.

(3.) However, he was totally wrong in appreciating the evidence, and therefore, there is clearly an error of law in exercising jurisdiction in as much as the finding of the District Judge with regard to neglect on the part of the tenant is concerned.