MOTIBHAI SARABHAI Vs. UTTAMSINGH GANGARAM VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two Revision Applications under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act), the petitioners have brought in challenge the common order passed by the Appellant Bench of the Small Causes at Ahmedabad in two connected appeals. By the said order, the Appellate Court allowed both appeals of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for possession against both the petitioners tenants. As the questions involved are identical, these revision applications are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners are the original-defendants-tenants while the respondents are the heirs of original landlord plaintiff who filed two suits in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. The suits were filed for possession of the respective suit premises in possession of two separate tenantspresent-petitioners. The ground for eviction was that concerned tenants were in arrears of rent for more than six months on the date of the suit notice and that they were not ready and willing to pay rent and consequently were liable to be evicted and that they forfeited protection of the Rent Act. As both the suits raised identical questions and were between the common landlord and two tenants separately situated, the suits were tried together by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, on recording of evidence, came to the conclusion that these cases were covered by Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act as taxes were demanded by the landlord alongwith the arrears of rent in the suit notice and consequently, the rent due and payable by the concerned defendant-tenants could not be said to be payable by months and also on the ground that within one month from the service of the suit notices, the concerned tenants raised dispute as to standard rent. So far as the alternative case of the landlord-original plaintiff that the defendant-tenants have lost the protection of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act was concerned, it was found by the Trial Court that the concerned tenants had not lost that protection as the dispute as to standard rent was raised and was resolved only in the Court's judgment and by that time all arrears of rent were paid by the concerned tenants. Consequently, both the suit for possession were dismissed by the Trial Court.

(3.) Plaintiff-predecessor-in-interest of the present opponents filed two appeals against these two decrees of dismissal of the suits before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes, at Ahmedabad. The Appellate Bench, on reappreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the finding of the Trial Court that Section 12 (3) (a) did not apply to the facts of the present case was well-sustained on record. However, so far as the finding of the Trial Court about the applicability of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Act was concerned, the Appellate Court took the contrary view and held that even though the concerned tenants had paid up all the arrears of rent by the time decrees of the Trial Court were passed and even though pending the appeals also, they had paid up arrears of rent then due, the deposits of rent made by them pending the appeal were irregular and, therefore, according to the Appellate Bench, Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act was not fully complied with by the concerned tenants. Only on that ground, decrees for possession were passed against both the tenants by the Appellate Judge. These decrees have been brought in challenge by the petititioners-original defendants-tenants in these two Revision Applications.