SHRIKANT GOLVANKAR Vs. ROCKEY DOMINICK GULAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for hearing prima facie formed opinion that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in (H. Shiva Rao and another v. Cecilia Pereira and others), A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 248, the petitioner tenant is entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) which was made applicable to the village Gokhivare where the premises were situated during the pendency of appeal though at the time the suit was filed and was decreed by the trial Court, the Bombay Rent Act was not applicable. The learned Single Judge in para 5 of the reference order observed thus ---

(2.) THIS is how the matter has come up before us.

(3.) THE facts are not disputed that the petitioner was monthly tenant in respect of room No. 6 out of the house property bearing House No. 223 of village Ghokhivare, Taluka Vasai on the rent of Rs. 30/- per month. The said premises were let out to the petitioner in the year 1969 by the erstwhile landlord. The present respondents who are original plaintiffs purchased the entire house property No. 223 in the year 1977. The petitioners tenancy was terminated by giving notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act on 1-9-81 as he was in arrears of rent. Since at the relevant time the provisions of Bombay Rent Act were not applicable, the landlords field the suit for possession in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasai setting out the facts aforestated. The tenant traversed landlords claim by filing his written statement. According to him, he had paid the rent regularly. He also denied that Bombay Rent Act was not applicable to the village Gokhivare where the premises in question were situated. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues and by judgment and decree dated 30th June, 1985 decreed plaintiffs suit for possession and directed the petitioner-tenant to hand over possession on or before 30th July, 1986. Upset by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred appeal before the District Judge, Thane. It appears that Part II of the Bombay Rent Act was made applicable vide Notification dated 5-2-87 to Gokhivre village during the pendency of appeal before the District Judge. The Appeal Court, however, did not find any merit in the appeal and by judgment dated 13th July, 1987 dismissed tenants appeal and extended time for vacation of the premises upto 31st August, 1987. The concurrent judgment and decree for eviction passed against the petitioner by the Court below are under challenge in the present writ petition. The sole contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions of Part II of Bombay Rent Act to the area in question having been reapplied to Gokhivare village during pendency of appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are bad in law and tenant cannot be evicted from the premises in question unless a case for eviction is made out under the Bombay Rent Act.