RAJGOR KHIMJI HARIDAS Vs. MUKTICHANDA AMARSHI PATAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision at the instance of the unsuccessful tenant, the challenge is against the ejectment decree on the ground of non-payment of rent, by invoking provisions of Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Rent Act' for short). The petitioner is the original tenant against whom the suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent filed by the respondent-original plaintiff-landlord came to be decreed. The parties for the convenience sake are hereinafter referred to as the landlord and tenant.

(2.) The landlord purchased the house bearing house No. 2/399 and 2/400 from Salat Narandas Ratanshi, and Laxmibai Ratanshi the original owner, by a registered sale deed dated 30-12-1974 for Rs. 11000.00. The demised premises are parts of the said house. The tenant is occupying a part of the said house bearing No. 2/339 at a monthly rent of Rs. 13.50. The tenat was served with a registered notice dated 30-12-1974 by the original landlord to pay rent from 1-1-1976 to the purchaser -new landlord. He was also requested to execute a rent note to the new landlord.

(3.) The case of the landlord is that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1-1-1975 for a period of 25 months and, therefore, the tenant is liable for eviction. He, therefore, filed a suit for possession. The tenant appeared and resisted the suit inter alia contending that the suit premises belonged to one Laxmibai Ratanshi and he is not aware of the purchase by the new landlord. Therefore, he had not been able to pay the rent. However, he contended that he is not liable to pay arrears of rent as he was not informed. It was also denied that the landlord is entitled to possession on the ground of requirement for self occupation.