GANPAT Vs. MOTILAL CHAMPALAL LUNAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner-landlord who has lost in the trial Court as well as in the appellate Court The suit for eviction was filed on the grounds of arrears of rent and reasonable and bona fide personal requirement under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act"). The respondent is the tenant. In order to understand the nature of the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to some details.

(2.) The respondent has been a tenant of the suit premises for several years. Prior to December 1958 he was paying monthly rent of Rupees 50/- to the then owner. Between December 1958 and April 1964, the owner was different. The present petitioner purchased the suit property in April 1964. The petitioner's pre-decessor-in-title had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 245 of 1962 against the respondent, in which the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 16/- per month. A sum of Rs. 1475/- was paid on account of rent in that suit. That suit came to be dismissed on 28th December 1963. The petitioner's predecessor-in-title preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 407 of 1964. That appeal was prosecuted by the petitioner, but it came to be dismissed, on 28th September 1965.

(3.) The petitioner then proceeded to issue a notice dated 7th December 1967 (Ex. 66) for determining the contractual tenancy and for demanding the arrears of rent from 1st April 1962 to 17th January 1968 at the rate of Rs. 16/- per month aggregating to Rs. 920/-, Rs. 69/- by way of permitted increases for the said period and Rs. 412.91 by way of municipal taxes and thus in all Rs. 1401.91. The said notice was served on 15th December 1967. On 8th January 1968, a sum of Rupees 989/- was remitted by the respondent by Money Order, but the petitioner refused to accept the same. This was followed by a reply dated 13th January 1968 (Ex. 67) from the respondent recording the fact that the money order was refused and that the petitioner was not entitled in law to recover Rs. 412.91 by way of municipal taxes. The petitioner did not choose to send a reply to the said letter.