MOHAMMED HUSSAIN KASAMBHAI Vs. CHANDRABHAGA SHIVNATH BAGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the owner of the house bearing c. T. S. No. 1304 and 1306 situate within local limits of Manmad Municipality. The Suit premises consists of Room No. 3 in the house situate at the above address. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 486/77 for possession on the ground that despite quit notice under Section 12 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, demanding arrears of rent for more than 6 months from 1st August, 1975 onwards, the tenant failed to pay the arrears. The tenant did not file standard rent application also. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above Suit for possession.

(2.) BY Judgment and Order, dated 27th October, 1980, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Suit notice (Ex-25) was duly served on the tenant ; that the tenant was a defaulter ; that she was in arrears of rent for more than 6 months ; that she paid rent for two months viz. June, 1975 and july, 1975 ; that she was in arrears for 23 months ; that she paid rent on 19th August, 1976 for the month of May, 1975 and in the circumstances, the Trial Court found that Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act was applicable 1 he Trial Court took note of the contention of the tenant that the rent was Rs. 15/- per month. The tenant contended that she was not liable to pay Municipal taxes and that the notice Ex-25 was erroneous because it demanded arrears of rent plus Municipal taxes which she was not bound to pay. The Trial Court proceeded on the basis that the tenant was liable to pay only Rs. 15/-per month. However, even on that basis the Trial Court found the tenant to be in arrears of more than 6 months. Accordingly, Decree was passed under Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay rent Act.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said Decree, the tenant preferred Civil appeal No. 409 of 1980. Before the Lower Appellate Court, the tenant conceded that she was a defaulter in payment of rent from 1st August, 1975 at the monthly rent of Rs. 15/-; she also conceded that even on the date of the quit notice, she was a defaulter by not paying rent for more than 6 months, but she contended that the quit notice was illegal as the landlord demanded Municipal taxes in addition to the rent, which the landlord was not entitled to do. Her only contention was that the quit notice was illegal. Her only contention, therefore, was that Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay rent Act was not applicable. The Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that a strict view of the notice by the landlord should be taken, because the landlord, vide quit notice (Ex-25), claimed Rs. 42/- towards municipal taxes in addition to arrears of rent of Rs. 420/- and since the landlord was not able to explain as to on what basis he claimed Rs. 42/- as municipal taxes, the Lower Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that although the tenant was a defaulter, the quit notice was illegal and, therefore, the suit filed by the landlord was bad in law. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the lower Appellate Court, the landlord has filed the present Writ Petition.