PRAFULBHAI GORDHANDAS DANI Vs. SHAH PANNALAL MANILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. P.K. Jaini, waives service of rule. With the consent of the learned counsel of the parties, the matter is finally heard today. This Civil Revision Application is filed by petitioner-landlord against the judgment and decree passed by Assistant Judge, Kaira at Nadiad in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1985 dated 21st March, 1990, whereby the learned Assistant Judge, Nadiad, has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, J.D. Kapadwanj in Regular Civil Suit No. 259 of 1981.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 259 of 1981 against the respondent tenant to recover possession of the suit premises Bombay City No. 4354, situated at Zanpi Pole and for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 24/- per month excluding the House Tax and other taxes payable by the respondent-tenant. The suit was instituted on the ground that respondent-tenant was the tenant in arrears of rent from Ist of November, 1978 to 10th of May, 1979 and from 11th of May, 1979 to 30th September, 1981 and that he has failed to pay the arrears of rent inspite of demand made by the petitioner-landlord under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The second ground pressed was guilty of conduct, which would amount to nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining neighbours.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent-tenant preferred appeal being Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1985, the Assistant Judge, Kaira heard the said appeal. The Assistant Judge Kaira buy his judgment and decree dated 21st of March, 1990, allowed the appeal of the respondent-tenant and recorded the finding that the respondent-tenant was ready and willing to pay the rent within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, and that respondent's case was governed by provision of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, and that, quashed and decree for eviction was required to be passed. He, therefore, quashed and set aside the decree of possession passed by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner-landlord and against the respondent-tenant. The appellate Judge also quashed and set-aside the decree for arrears of rent passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner-landlord and, in fact, the lower appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the suit of the petitioner-landlord.