SHANKARLAL MAGANLAL THAKKAR Vs. MANEKLAL C SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 (for short 'Bombay Rent Act').

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this revision are as under. The respondents filed a suit for eviction of the revisionist from the tenanted accommodation on the only ground that the tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent exceeding six months within a month of service of notice of demand. The disputed accommodation was let out to the revisionist by the respondents on monthly rent of Rs. 19.00 besides local taxes. The rent fell due from the revisionist since 13-8-1967 and a sum of Rs. 139.00 was sent by the revisionist to the respondents after service of notice. In this way Rs. 981.50 ps. remained due towards rent and Rs. 23/- towards the education cess from the revisionist from 13-8-1967 to 12-7-1972. In spite of demand this amount was not paid by the revisionist. Hence, the demand notice was sent on 7-8-1972 which was served on 17-8-1972. This notice remained uncomplied with. Only reply to the demand notice was given by the revisionist. As such suit for eviction was filed.

(3.) The revisionist resisted the suit on the ground that there was dispute of standard rent which was raised earlier in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 573 of 1972. In reply to the notice of demand also dispute of standard rent was raised by the revisionist. In the written statement also same dispute was raised that the standard- rent cannot be more than Rs. 10.00 p.m. It was denied that the revisionist was in arrears of rent for more than six months. He also denied his liability to pay education cess. He alleged payment of Rs. 50.00 and another sum of Rs. 20.00 but no receipt was issued by the landlord. Another payment of Rs. 216.00 was alleged by the revisionist. He further pleaded that he was not in arrears of rent for more than six months. He deposited Rs. 319.60 and thereafter money order of Rs. 139.50 was sent which was accepted by the landlord. Validity of notice was also challenged by the revisionist.