BABULAL CHANDULAL SHAH Vs. GAJANAN TRIMBAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition takes exception to the dismissal of petitioner's claim for possession under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act" or "Rent Act".

(2.) THE question that falls for determination in this petition, is to be considered in the backdrop of the following facts :- Bungalow No. 12 bearing M.C. No. 480/63 R-12 S/A Sumati Co-operative Housing Society, Nasik, was leased out to the respondent defendant on a rental of Rs. 400/- per month. Rent for the period 1.11.1974 to 30.6.1976 totalling Rs. 8,000/- was due from the defendant. By notice dated 13.5.1976, plaintiff-petitioner called upon the defendant to clear the aforementioned sum as also a sum of Rs. 810/- worked out at the rate of Rs. 30/- p.m. representing increases in municipal taxes. The so-called increase in taxes was in relation to educational cess at a rate higher than that originally levied. The notice was served on the defendant on two different addresses on 17.5.1976 and 18.5.1976. The notice not having been complied with, plaintiff filed suit. Some four grounds were taken in support of the claim for ejectment. Having regard to the stand taken before me, the only ground surviving is that the demand notice not having been complied with. Section 12(3)(4) was attracted and defendant liable to be evicted. The trial Court held that defendant was a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and, therefore, liable to be evicted under Section 12(3)(a). Aggrieved by the decision, defendant went in appeal to the District Court at Nasik. The same was heard by an Additional District Judge. This learned Judge held that Section 12(3)(a) did not apply and that inasmuch as defendant had complied with the terms of Section 12(3)(b), he could not be evicted. The appeal was allowed, and, plaintiff's claim for possession dismissed.

(3.) SECTION 105 of the Transfer of Property Act in so far as it is relevant recites -