PIROJA M MEHTA Vs. HAMBAI JAMSHEDJI CAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of proceedings instituted by the respondents for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner. The premises are situated at Mahabaleshwar in Satara District. The respondents are the landlords of the petitioner. They served upon the petitioner a notice on 23rd of May, 1979 under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act , demanding from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,675/- which was the rent due from 1st August, 1977 to 30th of April, 1979. Since there was no compliance with the demand made by the notice, the respondent filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1980, in the Court of Civil (Judge, Junior Division), at Wai.

(2.) The petitioner resisted the suit by contending that if proper account was taken of the amounts due from the parties to each other, there would be no arrears of rent as contended by the respondents. The petitioner also contended that the rent was Rs. 2000/- per annum the rent was payable, according to the petitioner, by the year and not by the month. The petitioner also alleged that she had spent a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on repairs to the suit premises. According to the petitioner, the suit fell under section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and not under section 12(3)(a) thereof.

(3.) The learned trial Judge, by the judgment and order dated 28th of April, 1986, decreed the suit for possession and also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,125/- which, according to the learned trial Judge, was the arrears of rent from August 1977. The learned trial Judge recorded a finding that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than six months and the demand made in the notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act was not met by the petitioner and hence the case fell squarely under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The decree for possession was thus inevitable in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (Harbanslal v. Prabhudas) A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 2005. The learned trial Judge also negatived the claim of the petitioner of having spent a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for repairs and improvements of the suit premises.