INDRAVAN TRIVEDI Vs. AMBABEN MOHANLAL SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the tenant challenging the decision of the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay holding that the tenant was liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground that there were arrears of rent and the case was covered by section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter the Bombay Rent Act). The plaintiff is admittedly the mother of one Manganlal. Maganlal was admittedly recovering rent from the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was in arrears of rent for the period July 1968 to January 1969, the monthly rent being Rs. 64.75 p. An Advocates notice was issued on 7th February, 1969. It is rather curiously worded. The noticed states that the plaintiff is the owner and also the constituted attorney of her son Manganlal Mohanlal and the defendant is his tenant of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 64.75 p. The notice further states that rent from 1st July, 1968 to 31st January, 1969 was due and since he was in arrears his tenancy was being terminated.

(2.) Now in the suit filed nothing has been stated about the plaintiff becoming the exclusive owner of the property, though it has transpired in the course of evidence that the plaintiff and her son Manganlal separated some time in November 1969. In the suit arrears of rent upto 31st March, 1969 amounting to Rs. 582.75 p. and a decree for possession of the suit premises were claimed.

(3.) In the written statement the defendants positive case was that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. It was stated that the plaintiff claimed to be the constituted attorney of her son Manganlal and the defendant was his tenant of the suit premises and, therefore, the suit filed in the name of the plaintiff was not maintainable. The defendant called upon the plaintiff to prove her ownership of the suit premises. The validity of the notice was denied. It was denied that the defendant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. A dispute with regard to standard rent was raised. The further case of the defendant was that in January 1969 he had paid Rs. 70/- to Manganlal but Manganlal did not issue a receipt.