DHOBI RAHEMAN PIRBHAI DECD Vs. TAHERALI HASANALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovering possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent. The defendant had been in arrears for about two years In reply to the statutory notice of demand served upon him he disputed the standard rent. He denied the plaintiffs claim. The learned trial Judge held that the case was not governed by sec. 17(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act but that it was governed by sec. 12(3)(b) He also held that the terms of sec. 12(3)(b) were complied with by the defendant and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to decree for possession. In that view of the matter he dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

(2.) The plaintiff appealed against that decree to the District Court. The learned appellate Judge held that the case was governed by sec. 12 (3) (a) and that the plaintiff was entitled to decree for possession. He therefore reversed the decree passed by the learned trial Judge and passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for possession.

(3.) It is that decree which is challenged by the defendant in this civil revision application.