LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-142

RAMESH SILK MILLS Vs. SHEETAL D KAMDAR

Decided On June 28, 2006
RAMESH SILK MILLS Appellant
V/S
SHEETAL D.KAMDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) In September 1979, the original landlord instituted a suit for eviction, RAE & R.Suit No.1230/4235 of 1979, against the Petitioners under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The ground for eviction that was set up was a default in the payment of rent since 1st December 1978. The premises which form the subject matter of the suit for eviction were transferred to the Respondent by a Deed of Conveyance dated 29th March 1990. The Deed of Conveyance contains a reference to several suits which were instituted by the original landlord against his tenants. Among them the schedule to the Deed of Conveyance specifically refers to the suit for eviction that was instituted against the Petitioners. The conveyance provides that the entire property admeasuring 2289 sq. yards, bearing Survey No.61, Hissa No.5A (Part) corresponding CTS No.666 was transferred to the Respondent together with a structure situated thereon and the claims and benefits arising out of the suits that were pending before the Court of Small Causes. The Respondent as the purchaser of the immovable property was entitled to the benefit of the pending suits and was authorised to pursue the claims until they were finally decided. The relevant parts of the Deed of Conveyance are as follows:

(3.) The suit for eviction proceeded on the foundation that the Petitioners were monthly tenants in respect of Block No.8 in Hyfa Building No.2 on terms and conditions conditions contained in an agreement of 16th November 1977. Under the agreement, the Petitioners had agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1141/- and in addition, all taxes which were prevailing on the date of the agreement which amounted to Rs.380/-. The tenancy was terminated by a letter dated 4th April 1978 on the that the Petitioners had defaulted in the payment of rent and the cheque that was issued by them had been dishonoured. The original landlord instituted a suit being RAE &R. Suit No.1039/3650 of 1978 seeking a decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The suit came to be compromised on 16th December 1978. Under the Consent Terms that were arrived at between the Petitioners and the landlord, the Petitioners agreed to pay rent of Rs. 1746.58 p.m. from 1st December 1978 and at the rate of Rs. 2000/- p.m. from 1st January 1979. The case of the original landlord was that the Petitioners failed to pay rent from December 1978. A cheque in the amount of Rs. 1746.58 remitted for December 1978 was not honoured. A notice of demand was accordingly addressed on 7th March 1979. It was averred therein that on 18th June 1979, the Petitioners had sent a banker's cheque for one month's rent, but by that date over six months' rent was in arrears. Thereupon, a further notice demand was addressed to the Petitioners on 25th June 1979 calling upon the Petitioners to pay the arrears of rent which were for a period in excess of six months from 1st December 1978. The suit for eviction was thereupon instituted in September 1979 on the foundation that despite receipt of the notice of demand, the arrears of rent had not been paid within a period of one month as required by Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, nor was an application filed for fixation of standard rent. The Petitioners filed a Written Statement and denied the allegations contained in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the Respondent acquired the right, title and interest in respect of the immovable property including the suit premises, by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 29th March 1990. In October 1998, the plaint came to be amended and the name of the original Plaintiff was deleted. Issues were framed. The Respondent came to be substituted instead and in place of the original Plaintiff. Moulik Dhirajlal Kamdar, the son and Constituted Attorney of the Respondent deposed on behalf of the Respondent.