SHANTA A. VAIDYA Vs. B.G. BHISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a 'petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 80 of 1972, which order confirmed the decree passed by the Court of first instance in R.A.E. Suit No. 2876 of 1969. That suit had been instituted by the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, against one B.G. Bhise, who was the tenant of room No. 2 on the ground floor of a building situate at 6, D.L. Vaidya Road. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of the tenement measuring 180 sq. ft. It has been mentioned that it consists of two rooms; one is 10' x 10' and the other is 8' x 10'. The rent of the premises, according to the plaintiff, was Rs. 26.16 per month, excluding the education cess.

(2.) BY issuing a notice dated 20th of March, 1969 under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act", the plaintiff instituted the suit on grounds which are available to a landlord under Sections 13(3)(a) and 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The foundation of the claim of the plaintiff, in so far as it was based upon Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, was that the defendant-tenant had not complied with the requisitions which were made by the plaintiff upon him by the notice dated 20th March, 1969, within one month after the issuance of the said notice. It was also urged that within one month after the notice under Section 12(2) was issued, the defendant did not make any application for fixation of standard rent. Under the well-settled law, the defendant had neglected to pay the standard rent and permitted increases and was liable to be evicted under Sections 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) THE Court of first instance by its judgment and order dated 4th of January, 1972 dismissed the suit, holding first that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises reasonable and bonafide and secondly that greater hardship would be caused to the defendant if a decree for possession were passed than the hardship that would be caused to the plaintiff if a decree for possession were refused. On the question of the liability on account of arrears of rent, the trial Court held that the case was covered by the provisions contained in Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and since the defendant had deposited the entire amount during the pendency of the suit, he was not liable to be evicted.