DATTA NAGOSA SOLANKI Vs. MADHUKAR DATTOBA ADNIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 11 /1 /1993, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, (appellate court) , whereby, the Judgment and decree passed by the II Jt. Civil judge, J. D. , Kolhapur, (trial Court) dated 7/3/1987, was set aside and the matter has been remanded to the trial Court for a fresh trial.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The bone of contention in the present matter is revolving around the issue, about fixation of standard rent, as contemplated under section 11 (3) r/w section 12 (a) and (b) of the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short bombay Rent Act).

(3.) The main ground for the suit of eviction was irregular payment. The trial Court, after considering the merits of the matter accepted the case of the landlord. The trial Court, had considered the following observation of the judgments of the Bombay High Court in 1986 Bom. R. C. 316 (Danilal v. Lalji thakkar) 1. "the empty formality of moving an application for determination of standard rent within one month of the receipt of the demand notice under section 12 (2) is not enough. If the Court was under an obligation to forthwith specify the amount payable by the tenant, it could do so, only if it was moved by the tenant. As said earlier, there is no evidence to show that the tenant was in hurry to get the order contemplated by Section 12 (3) of the Act. The result is that he was disentitled to the protection under Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act. This case falls under Section 12 (3) (a). "