PRAVESHCHANDRA RAMPRAKASH SAHANI Vs. ABDUL AJIJ DAYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) RULE. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

(3.) THE decree of eviction, which is sought to be challenged on the ground that the Lower Appellate Court failed to give benefit of section 12 (3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to the petitioners in spite of the fact that the petitioners had deposited all the arrears along with interest within 30 days from the date of filing of the standard rent application and has further deposited all the arrears within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of the suit for eviction and thereafter had regularly deposited the rent during the pendency of the proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the Lower Appellate Court has set aside the order of dismissal of the eviction proceedings solely on the ground that regularity in payment of rent during pendency of the suit cannot make good default committed by the tenant at the very first date of the hearing of the suit. It is apparent from the impugned judgment itself that the first payment of arrears of rent was made by the petitioners on 13-4-1987 amounting to Rs. 7860/- being the arrears of rent for the period from 1-6-1976 to 30-4-1987. Initially an application for fixing of standard rent was filed on 31st March, 1987 but the same had been dismissed for default on 23-8-1991. Thereafter, the eviction suit being R. C. S. No. 251/1991 came to be filed by the respondents and pursuant to the service of summons of the same, the petitioners deposited the arrears of rent from 1-5-1987 on 15-7-1994. Thereafter also the petitioners deposited the rent upto 31-12-1994. However, thereafter the rent for the period from January 1995 till March, 1995 was deposited on 20th March, 1995. The petitioners paid rent regularly from August 1995 till January 1996. Again the rent fallen due from 1-7-1996 onwards was paid only on 1-1-1997 during the pendency of the appeal. Further payments were made in the Lower Appellate Court on 11-7-1997, 12-2-1998, 17-7-1998 and 8-4-1999. Considering these irregular payments of rent, the Lower Appellate Court has observed that it does to show the delay on number of occasions in making payment of rent.