SITABAI RAMNATH VAIDYA Vs. SHRIDHAR ABAJIT MAIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order of eviction passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division). Nasik dated February 28, 1979 and the order passed in appeal by the Extra Assistant Judge, Nasik, dated July 27, 1981. At the time of admission of this petition before a Single Judge of this Court it was observed that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench in view of the apparent conflict between the two decisions of this Court in (Special Civil Application No. 2021 of 1969 decided on March 12, 1974) (Hajarnavis, J.) and A.I.R. 1977 Bom. 344 (Aggarwal, J,). Accordingly the matter was placed before us for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) Few facts leading to this writ petition are that the respondents was the owner of a house bearing Municipal House No. 1428, situated at Hundiwala Lane, Nasik and the petitioner was the tenant of a room admeasuring 12 x 10 on the second floor of the said house on payment of Rs. 12/- per month. The petitioner committed defaults in the payment of rent with effect from December 1, 1974 to July 31, 1975. Accordingly on August 26, 1975, a composite notice terminating the tenancy and demand of arrears of rent as provided by section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "The Bombay Rent Act), was issued. In spite of the said notice the tenant did not remit the arrears of the rent within one month nor did he make any application for fixation of standard rent as provided under section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act. The second contention of the respondents was that the eastern portion of the house, including the suit room, is in a dilapidated condition. There is a likelihood of its coming down at any time. The said portion of the house was inspected by the Municipal authorities in the year 1972 and a notice of demolition of the said house ,the same being dangerous for residence, within 7 days was issued. The petitioner-tenant did not vacate the room to enable the respondent landlord to demolish the said house. It is on these grounds, namely, default in payment of rent for more than six months and the notice of demolition by the Nasik Municipal Council, that eviction of the said house was claimed by the respondent. The said suit was resisted by the tenant contending inter alia that the tenancy was not terminated by any lawful notice. The petitioner also contended that the suit room is not in a dilapidated condition and there is no likelihood of its coming down. On these rival pleadings number of issues were framed in the trial Court. Issue No. 15 was,

(3.) Shri Angal, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, contended that the notice terminating the tenancy of the tenant is bad in law inasmuch as the correct standard rent has not been demanded. Relying upon the judgement of this court in (Ganpat v. Motilal Champalal Lunawat and another) A.I.R. 1977 Bom. 344, Shri Angal contended that the notice is bad in law because the correct standard rent has not been stated in the said notice and an inflated amount has been claimed as the arrears of rent.