LAXMIKANT VAIDYA Vs. RAJLAXMI RAMKISHORE SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below under the Bombay Rent Act holding that a decree under section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act is liable to be passed against the petitioner.

(2.) In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to see whether the tenant has complied with the requirements of section 12(3)(b) of the Act, the Court has to hold an enquiry and record findings on the following aspects : (1) what is the first date of hearing of the suit, (2) whether by the first date of hearing or any other date that the court may fix, the tenant has deposited the arrears of rent, taking into consideration the deposits made by the tenant in the application filed by him for fixation of standard rent under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act and (3) whether thereafter the tenant has continued to deposit in court or pay to the landlord directly the amount of monthly rent regularly. The learned counsel took me through the judgments of both the courts below to establish that neither of the Courts below has recorded findings as to what was the first date of hearing of the suit and what were the deposits made by the tenant in the standard rent application and in the civil suit by that date. I have gone through the record of the case. I do not find any findings recorded by the Courts below as to what was the first date of hearing of the suit and what were the deposits made by the tenant in the standard rent application and in the suit by that date. I also do not find consideration by the Courts below as to how much amounts were deposited or paid by the tenant after the first date of hearing. Therefore, it is clear that the courts below have recorded a finding that the tenant has not complied with the requirements of section 12(3)(b) of the Act without recording a findings on the essential ingredients of section 12(3)(b). Therefore, in my opinion, the judgments of both the courts below impugned in the petition are liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds partly and is allowed. The judgments impugned in the petition are quashed and set aside and Regular Civil Suit No.792/1978 is remanded back to the trial Court for de novo hearing and decision in accordance with law. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.