MOCHI NARSINHBHAI GANDABHAI Vs. SHAH MOTILAL HIMATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant was aggrieved by the eviction decree passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Baroda in Regular Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1969 which had arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (J. D ) Karjan in Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 1966. The learned Extra Assistant Judge took the view that the petitioner-tenant is not entitled to any protection under Sec. (12)(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned trial Judge passed the decree against the petitioner-tenant under Sec 12(3) (a) of the Rent Act and he also took the view that the petitioner-tenant is not entitled to protection under Sec. 12(3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) A few relevant facts giving rise to the present revision application may be stated in brief. By the rent note dated April 8 1962 vide Ex. 24 the suit premises were let out for the residential purpose of the petition- er tenant and it was agreed in the said rent note that the petitioner- tenant the petitioner-tenant should pay the rent to the opponent- landlord after the expiration of 12 .months The yearly rent agreed between the parties is Rs. 150.00 as mentioned in the said rent note

(3.) After the expiration of the aforesaid period of 12 months the petitioner-tenant continued to be in possession of the suit premises and hence on February 24 1966 by the necessary notice to quit vide Ex. 15 the opponent-landlord terminated the tenancy of the tenant and filed the suit for obtaining an eviction decree on April 20 1966 The only ground on which the suit was filed is the nonpayment of the arrears of rent from 16 November 1963 to 20th April 1966 The said suit was numbered as Civil Suit No. 44 of 1966 of the Court of the Civil Judge . D. Sinor