LAWS(BOM)-1983-11-34

EKNATH RADHKISAN BAJAJ Vs. MADHAV BHAGWAN BHORE

Decided On November 30, 1983
EKNATH RADHKISAN BAJAJ Appellant
V/S
MADHAV BHAGWAN BHORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant of the landlord who filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 349 of 1973, in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), at Ahmednagar for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner. The group urged in support of the prayer for possession was among others, the failure of the petitioner to pay arrears of rent within one month from the service of the notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act") The said notice is dated 6th of September, 1972 and was served upon the petitioner. In that notice, as in the plaint in the trial Court, several grounds were mentioned for seeking possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner. Since the trial Court has negatived two grounds and since the Appeal Court below did not touch the trial Courts findings on the same, it is not necessary for me to refer to those grounds.

(2.) On 6th of October, 1972, which would be within thirty days after the receipt of the notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, the petitioner filed an application under section 11(3) of the Bombay Rent Act for fixation of the standard rent of the suit premises. The petitioner also made an application for a direction for the payment of interim rent. Unfortunately, no orders were passed by the trial Court for the payment of the interim rent. The application for fixation of the standard rent is numbered as Miscellaneous Application No. 371 of 1972.

(3.) On 15th of December, 1976, the trial Court passed an order in proceedings which comprised both he suit and the miscellaneous application for the fixation of the standard rent, that the petitioner should deposit all arrears of rent and further that he should go on depositing Rs. 12 per month before the 5th of every month. This order was undoubtedly complied with by the petitioner with the result that on 28th of December, 1977 the respondents suit was dismissed.