LALSHANKAR MULJI JOSHI Vs. KANTILAL MOHANLAL PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's petition challenging the order passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Poona. the respondent is a tenant of the suit premises belonging to the petitioner at a rent of Rs. 17/- per month. Because he was in arrears of rent for more than six months, therefore the petitioner had to serve a notice on the respondent. The notice was dated 17-8-1965 and the respondent was asked to quit by 30-9-1965. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 176 - 90p. As the notice was not complied, the suit was filed claiming arrears of rent and possession on three grounds, the first being arrears of rent for more than six months, the second was that the suit premises were required for personal use by the landlord and the third was that the respondent - tenant was keeping the premises locked and had not been using them.

(2.) THE trial Court framed a number of issues on the pleadings of the parties and held that the petitioner had established that the respondent was a defaulter for a period of six months or more. He was of the view that the tenancy of the respondent - tenant was validly terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, though not under Section 12 (2) of he Bombay Rent Act. Accordingly, therefore, the trial Court dismissed the petitioner's suit for possession, but passed a decree for arrears of rent. Against this decree the landlord went in appeal.

(3.) THE appellate Court considered several issues and found that the notice served by the petitioner is not valid, the demand therein being excessive. According to him, the notice being invalid, the tenant cannot be said to be not ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent accrued due upto the date of the notice. He, therefore, did not consider as to whether the respondents was or was not in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months on the date of the notice of demand issued on 17-8-1965 and whether he was not ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent.