LILADHAR PATHUBHAI Vs. PRAVINCHANDRA NAGJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application is against a decree for eviction passed against the applicant who was the original defendant The decree was passed under sub sec. (3)(a) of sec. 12 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rate Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) and the short point for consideration is whether that provision applied or whether sub-sec. (3) of sec. 12 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Saurashtra Act) applied.

(2.) The material facts are not now in dispute. The applicant was the tenant of the opponents in the premises in question at Rs. 12/per month. The tenancy was from the 18th of the month to the 17th of the next month according to the British Calender month. On 8-2-1963 the opponents give a notice to the applicant calling upon him to vacate the premises at the end of 17-3-1963. On the date of the notice the rent In arrears was Rs. 133.13 which were the arrears for more than six months. By that notice he was called upon to pay besides being called upon to vacate. There was no compliance by the applicant to these demands in the notice and the suit was filed on 7-5-1964. The applicant deposited arrears of rent in Court on the first date of hearing. It was contended in the Courts below that the applicant having deposited the arrears on the first date of hearing cannot be evicted. In support of that contention reliance was placed on sub-sec. (3) of sec. 12 of the Saurashtra Act to which further reference will be made presently. The answer on behalf of the opponents was that sub-sec. (3)(a) of sec. 12 of the Bombay Act applied and thereunder the Court must pass a decree for eviction. Both the lower Courts accepted the opponents submission and decreed the suit for possession.

(3.) To appreciate the submission made it is necessary to refer to certain facts and the relevant provisions of the law. On the date of the notice that is on 8-2-1963 and on the date on which the tenancy was terminated that is on 17-3-1963 the Saurashtra Act was in force in that area That Act was repealed with effect from 31-12-1963 by the Gujarat Act No. 57 of 1963 and by that Gujarat Act the Bombay Act ( The Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 was extended to the area in question as from that date that is from 31-12-1963. Therefore at the time the suit was filed the Bombay Act was in force in the area. Now sub-secs. (1) and (2) of sec. 12 of the Saurashtra Act and sub-secs. (1) and (2) of sec. 12 of the Bombay Act are in identical language. They read as under: