BACHUBHAI ISMAILBHAI Vs. ISMAIL HAJI IBRAHIMBHAI MALEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-1-1981 passed by the District Judge, Kaira at Nadiad in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1979 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30- 4-1979 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (J. D.), Kaira at Nadiad in Regular Civil Suit No. 478 of 1977.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of the arrears of rent and eviction of the respondent under Sec. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act"). The suit was based on the sole ground of default in the matter of the payment of the arrears of rent for a period over six months and it is alleged by the plaintiff that in fact the arrears were due for a period of five years. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit and against this order of dismissal of suit, an Appeal was preferred by the plaintiff (landlord). The appellate Court has allowed the Appeal and the order of the trial Court has been set aside. In other words, the present petitioner is to be evicted on the basis of the decree passed by the appellate Court. It is against the aforesaid decision dated 22-1-1981 passed by the District Judge, Kaira at Nadiad that the present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner (tenant).

(3.) Mr. Desai has stressed on the point that the notice, which was given by the respondent (landlord) under Sec. 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, was invalid, void ab initio inasmuch as it was vague and did not mention the date from which the arrears were due. It is not disputed before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no reply to the notice under Sec. 12(2) had been sent by the petitioner (tenant) and no matter was filed for standardisation of the rent. Thus, the petitioner (tenant) did not contest the matter at the stage of notice. The Counsel of the petitioner has read over the notice under Sec. 12(2) in extenso before me. Having heard the Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the contents of the notice, I find that in the notice rate of rent has been mentioned as Rs. 25.00 P. M., tenancy commencing from 1st day of every month according to the Gregorian calender and it has also been held out in the notice that the total due amount of arrears was Rs. 1,500.00 and further that the rent was due upto 31-5-1977. The fact that the notice contains the aforesaid recitals is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. But his submission is that the actual period for which the rent was due has not been mentioned in the notice nor the plaintiff took care to mention the date from which the petitioner (tenant) was in arrears. He has sought support to this submission from 1977 GLR 77 (Bapulal Kalidas v. Bai Kashiben). It has been held in the aforesaid decision by our own High Court that the notice must be precise and there cannot be any dispute with that position of law that the contents of notice must convey such fact on the basis of which the recipient of notice is able to make out as to for what period the amount is due and how much amount has to be paid. Mr. Desai has laid much stress on the words mentioned in para 6 of the aforesaid decision in the case of Bapulal Kalidas v. Bai Kashiben (supra) :