ISABEL M REBELLO Vs. KASARCHAND ANANDRAM BANTHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting point of interpretation of Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

(2.) THE petitioner is the widow of one M. C. Rebello. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of M. C. Rebello. M. C. Rebello was a monthly tenant of a shop admeasuring 7' X 17' situated in municipal house No. 360, Panvel. The rent of the premises was Rs. 14/- per month. Respondent No. 1 is the landlord of the premises. On September 3, 1964, respondent No. 1 served M. C. Rebello with a notice terminating his tenancy on the ground that M. C. Rebello had failed and neglected to pay arrears of rent from November 1, 1963. Before the expiry of one month after the notice, on September 28, 1964, M. C. Rebello paid Rs. 100/- to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 accepted the same towards the arrears. Respondent No. 1 filed on October 17, 1964 a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel praying for possession of the above premises on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(3.) UNFORTUNATELY on that very day, M. C. Rebello died. The plaintiff brought on the record his heirs the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner alone appeared and resisted the suit by filing a written statement in which she contended that the rent of Rs. 14/- was not the standard rent and it was excessive, that the Court should fix the standard rent at Rs. 10/- per month, that when Rs. 100/- was paid by M. C. Rebello, she had paid the amount to respondent No. 1 as respondent No. 1 agreed that she should pay the balance of the amount within two months. She further contended that she sent Rs. 50/- by money order on October 19, 1964 and this money order was refused by respondent No. 1. She contended further that it was respondent No. 1 (who after having agreed to accept the balance two months after September 28, 1964 when Rs. 100/- was paid), that was responsible for default and she was not a defaulter at the date of the suit.