YUSUFJI SULEMANJI KHATRI Vs. MAHAMADBHAI AMIRBHAI MALEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent had let out the disputed accommodation to the revisionist on Rs. 35.00 p.m. Rent fell due from the revisionist since 1-12-1977. Notice of demand and eviction was sent on 18-1-1979 demanding arrears of rent from 1-12-1977 to 31-12-1978 amounting to Rs. 455.00. No action was taken after service of this notice. Second notice was sent by landlord-respondent on 19-2-1980 in which again arrears of rent from 1-12-1977 to 31-1-1980 amounting to Rs. 910/ - were demanded. This notice was served on the revisionist. Within a period of one month of service of second notice the revisionist remitted Rs. 945.00, i.e., an amount in excess of Rs. 35.00 than the demand contained in the second notice, by money order. It was accepted by the landlord on 10-3-1980, i.e., within one month of the statutory period. Even then the suit was filed on the ground of tenant remaining in arrears of rent for more than six months. Eviction was also sought on another ground that the premises was reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord-respondent for his personal use.

(3.) The suit was contested by the revisionist. He pleaded that no rent was due when the suit was filed and the second notice of demand was complied within a month of service of notice. It was denied that the premises was bona fide and reasonably required by the landlord for his personal use. However, it found that since the first notice Exh. 27 dated 18-1-1979 was not complied with within the statutory period, the defendant was liable to be evicted. As such decree for eviction was passed. An appeal was preferred. The appellate Court agreed with the view taken by the trial Court. Hence, appeal was dismissed. It is, therefore, this revision.