RAMAKANT GOVIND NADKARNI Vs. DIRISHA NAVROJI MANDHORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the petitioner-tenant is entitled to protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) or not is the main question which has arisen for examination and adjudication in this revision petition under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. Interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Secs. 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act is involved in this petition.

(2.) The petitioner is the original defendant-tenant in respect of residential premise bearing Municipal No. 1297 situated in Bazar Road, in Bilimora town which is hereinafter referred to as the 'demise premises'. The respondents are the owners of the demise premises and they are the original plaintiffs who initiated legal battle by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1974 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Gandevi against the petitioner-tenant for possession on the ground of arrears of rent for more than six months. The demise premises were let by a rent note dated 10- 10-1967 for a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 75.00 payable every month. The notice for arrears of rent was not replied to or complied with. Therefore, suit was filed for possession.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant who is the original defendant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement Ex. 15, inter alia, contending that he is the tenant in respect of the demise premises but not at a monthly rent of Rs. 75.00. According to his case, he is yearly tenant and he had paid rent to the Manager of the respondents upto 30-9-1973 and that he was in arrears of rent from 1-10-1973 and not from 1-10-1972. It was also contended by the tenant that he had paid rent to the power of attorney holder of the respondents, but the rent was refused. The dispute of standard rent came to be raised in the written statement and the tenant claimed that the standard rent should be fixed at Rs. 60.00 per month instead of Rs. 75.00. The trial Court, in the light of the pleading between the parties raised issue, at Ex. 16, and after appreciation of the evidence reached to the conclusion that the respondentsoriginal plaintiffs have proved that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent for more than 6 months and that he neglected to make payment within one month after the receipt of notice. It was also found by the trial Court that the tenant was not ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases and therefore, he is not entitled to the protection of the provisions of Sec. 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Consequently, eviction decree came to be passed against the tenant on 6-8-1977.