ANITA M BARRETO Vs. ABDUL WAHID SANAULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged decree of eviction passed against him in proceedings arising under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act"). Regular Civil Suit No. 289 of 1978 was filed by the respondent in this petition against the petitioner in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), at Ulhasnagar on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent which had not been paid despite the notice issued under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The claim for possession was also included in the suit. Thus the suit was one for recovery of rent with a claim for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner.

(2.) In that suit, on behalf of the respondent-landlord an application was made on 4th August 1979 under section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act requesting the Court for a direction that the petitioner should pay all the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per month forthwith "failing which his defence may be struck off and he may not be permitted to appear and defend the suit". On the same day, the learned Civil Judge directed that the other side should give its say in the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her say. Thereafter the learned trial Judge passed an order as follows :---

(3.) From the order reproduced above it is clearly seen that the learned trial Judge did not indicate anywhere in the order what the consequences of the non-compliance of the said order would be. However, on a report submitted by the Nazir of the Court on 15th September, 1979 the learned trial Judge noted that the petitioner had not complied with the orders of the Court passed on 29th October, 1979 and, therefore, he said that the petitioners defence were struck off. From the record it is not clear and I have not been informed under what circumstances the learned trial Judge asked for the report of the Nazir and whether the order striking off the defence was passed after or without hearing the petitioner. In any case, that does not affect the discussion that has taken place before me and the decision which I am called upon to give on the facts and circumstances of this case.