VAJUBHAI VASHRAM Vs. PARIKH MOHANLAL RANCHHODDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application by the tenant under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 29 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) in the main two questions arise for my decision namely (i) whether the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Pravinchandra Shamaldas Patel & Ors. v. Saraswatiben Ranchhodbhai 18 G.L.R. 8 holding that the term regularly appearing in sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act is merely directory and not mandatory and strict compliance with its provisions need not be insisted upon is impliedly over-ruled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde. 19 G.L.R. 502; and (ii) if yes whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the tenant can be said to have failed to comply with the requirements of sec. 12(3)(b) inasmuch as he failed to pay or tender the standard rent regularly in the appellate court so as to forfeit the protection accorded by that sub-section. As a limb of the same submission Mr. Desai the learned advocate for the tenant contended that a suit would not include an appeal and hence the obligation to pay or tender regularly the standard rent cannot be extended to an appeal also. In order to appreciate these submissions made by Mr. Desai for the petitioner-tenant it is necessary to bear in mind a few facts.

(2.) The opponent is the owner of a property which came to be constructed for the first time after 1948. The first floor of the property was initially occupied by one Onali Lalbhai Ismailji on a monthly rent of Rs. 35.00 from 1-11-1952. After the said occupant vacated the premises the petitioner occupied the suit premises as a monthly tenant on the contractual rent of Rs. 32.00 per month inclusive of Rs. 2.00 per month payable towards education case. The tenancy was according to British Calendar commencing from the first day of the month and ending with the last day thereof. The petitioner fell in arrears of rent from 1st Octo- ber 1971 and he was served with a notice under sec. 12(2) of the Action 15 July 1972 whereunder rent aggregating Rs. 2881 from 1st October 1971 to 30th June 1972 was claimed and the tenant was called upon to vacate and deliver possession of the demised premises on 30th August 1972 A corrigendum was despatched within two days i. e. on 17th July 1972 clarifying that the date of termination of tenancy mentioned in the earlier notice should be read as 31st August 1972 The tenant gave reply to the said notice on 16th August 1972 raising a dispute as regards the standard rent of the demised premises. Before the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the notice to quit he filed an application for- fixation of standard rent being Application No. 28/72 on 16th August 1972 and during the pendency of the said application he moved the court for fixation of interim rent which was fixed at Rs. 25.00 per month. On the other hand the landlord filed a suit No. 254/72 seeking ejectment on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1st October 1971 to 31st August 1972 as also on the ground that the premises were required for personal occupation. Both the suit and the standard rent application were heard together by consent of parties and the learned trial Judge fixed the standard rent at Rs. 32.00 per month inclusive of Rs. 2.00 per month towards education case and held that the landlord was entitled to the standard rent at the said rate from 1st October 1971 He however took the view that the tenant was entitled to the protection of sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act and since the landlord had failed to prove that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by him for personal use and occupation he dismissed the suit directing the parties to bear their own costs The landlord being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge in his suit prefer. red an Appeal in the court of the learned District Judge Panchmahals at Godhra being Regular Civil Appeal No. 7/76. The said appeal was transferred for disposal to the learned Assistant Judge Panchmahals at Godhra who by his judgment and decree dated 31st August 1976 allowed the appeal holding that the tenant had not complied with the requirements of sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act and gave a decree of eviction granting six months time to the tenant to vacate and deliver possession of the demised premises to the landlord. The order passed by the learned trial Judge as regards the fixation of standard rent was confirmed by the learned Judge in appeal. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the; appeal also.

(3.) It is against the decree of eviction granted by the learned Assistant Judge Panchmahals Godhra in the aforesaid appeal that the tenant has preferred this Revision Application under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 29 of the Act. At the hearing of this revision application Mr. V. J. Desai the learned advocate for the tenant raised the aforesaid contentions before me. I shall now proceed to deal with the contentions in the order in which I have set them out in the earlier part of this judgment.