MAHADEO SADASHIV CHIMATE Vs. SHRIPAL TAVANAPPA MAGADUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit of 1973, initially decreed, but on remand by the Appellate Court dismissed, and replacing the same by eviction on allowing appeal in 1980, is brought under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE question to be considered in this petition is whether the said decree of eviction of the appellate Court, by allowing appeal, is correct and proper on the basis of application of the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, in that as to whether it can be said, on the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner-tenant is not entitled to protection from eviction for non-compliance of the said provisions by not depositing the ad interim rent regularly in the Court.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1040 of 1973 on the basis of the quit notice dated March 27, 1973 demanding arrears of rent from January 1, 1970 upto the date of the suit for 38 month for an amount of Rs. 1,482/-. The petitioner on receipt of the quit notice, within a period of one month, on April 19, 1973, filed a Standard Rent Application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act for fixing up the standard rent of the suit premises, thereby raising a dispute with regard to the contractual rent.