MOHANLAL JERAM MISTRY Vs. HARILAL MOTICHAND MANIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the landlord be permitted to succeed in his design in getting possession of the suit permises by laying a trap for the tenant to fall into arrears of rent after refusing to accept money orders for rent sent by the tenant on previous occasions ? What is the mode of raising a dispute regarding the standard rent ? Is it necessary for the tenant to raise the dispute as to the standard rent of the rented premises afresh after service of the demand notice once he has raised it after service of the demand notice on the earlier occasion ? These are some of the questions arising in this revisional application preferred by the original tenant under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the 'Rent Act' for brief) challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge of Jamnagar on 21/11/1979 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1976. Thereby the learned Appellate Judge was pleased to accept the appeal and to set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) at Jamnagar on 16th August, 1976 in Regular Civil Suit No. 297 of 1972. Thereby the learned Trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the landlords for possession of the rented premises from the tenant. It may be mentioned at this stage that the original tenant has breathed his last during the pendency of this revisional application before this Court and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15/02/1984 in Civil Application No. 626 of 1984.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revisional application may be summarised thus: The original petitioner was the tenant of the premises belonging to the respondents herein. The monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 6.25 ps. It appears that the landlords wanted possession of the suit premises from the tenant. They therefore served one notice on 3/03/1971 through their Advocate to the tenant terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to hand over possession of the rented premises to them. They claimed possession on the ground that the son of the original tenant had acquired a suitable residence. It was indicated in the notice that the rent for the month of February 1971 had fallen due. The original tenant caused his reply on 20/03/1971 through his Advocate to the aforesaid notice of the landlords inter alia contending therein that the monthly rent of the rented premises was originally Rs. 4 per month and it was subsequently raised to Rs. 6.25 ps. per month. It was denied that his son had acquired suitable residence. He also sent one money order for Rs. 6.25 ps. along with his reply through his Advocate addressed to the Advocate through whom the landlords served to him the quit notice. That money order was not accepted. The original tenant thereafter sent another money order for Rs. 6.25 ps. towards the rent due for February 1971 in the name of his landlord. It was also not accepted. Little later he again sent a money order for Rs. 12.50 ps. in the name of the landlord towards the rent for two months for February and March 1971. It was also not accepted. Thereafter, on 9/03/1972, the landlords gave another notice to the original tenant calling upon him to pay up the rent for 13 months from 1/02/1971 to 2 9/02/1972. As the said rent had fallen due, the tenancy of the tenant was sought to be terminated by the said notice. The tenant appears not to have caused any reply thereto. He does not appear to have paid the rent demanded by the landlords in their notice. Thereupon the landlords filed one suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) at Jamnagar against the tenant for recovery of possession of the rented premises from him. That suit came to be registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 297 of 1972. The tenant filed his written statement at Exh. 8 in the suit proceedings and resisted it on various grounds. The learned trial Judge framed the necessary issues at Exh. 10 on the record of the suit. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his judgment and decree passed on 16/08/1976 in Regular Civil Suit No. 297 of 1972, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the landlords against the tenant for possession. The aggrieved landlords thereupon carried the matter in appeal before the District Court at Jamnagar. Their appeal came to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1976. It appears to have been assigned to the learned Assistant Judge for hearing and disposal. After hearing the parties, the learned Assistant Judge at Jamnagar, by his judgment and decree passed on 21/11/1979, was pleased to accept the appeal and to set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Appellate Judge was pleased to decree the suit of the landlords for possession. The aggrieved tenant thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 29(2) of the Rent Act.

(3.) The learned Trial Judge held in favour of the tenant that the tenant had shown willingness to pay the rent by money orders but the same was refused by and on behalf of the landlords. The learned Appellate Judge however took a contrary view holding that the previous readiness and willingness of the tenant would not enure for his benefit when the demand notice is subsequently served to him.