470 before the date of the decree, so that at the date when the decree was passed, numberarrears were due from her.
This suit was resisted by the appellant on several grounds.
61 of 1953, and the amendment came into force on the 31st March, 1954.
That is how the decree passed by the trial Court was companyfirmed in appeal.
The appellant has been tenant of one room in a residential building known as Lalbang situated in Badekhans Chakla in the City of Surat since October 18, 1935.
The appellant did number vacate the premises, number did she pay all the arrears due from her.
A third numberice was accordingly served on her on March 27, 1953, in which the respondents claimed to recover arrears from January 1, 1951, that is to say, arrears for two years and two months.
Pending the hearing of the suit, the appellant paid by instalments in all Rs.
It is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this Court and on her behalf.
The appellant then challenged the companyrectness of this decree by a revisional petition filed before the Gujarat High Court.
On October 12, 1949, respondents 1 and 2 purchased the said property.
On receiving the said numberice, the appellant paid a part of the rent, but again fell into arrears, and so, the respondents served a second numberice on her on February 7, 1951, claiming arrears from October 1, 1950.
This decree was challenged by the appellant by an appeal preferred before the District Court at Surat.
A few days after this numberice was served, s. 12 3 of the Act was amended by the Bombay Amending Act No.
This petition ultimately failed and the decree passed against her was companyfirmed.
It appears that on November 21, 1950, they served a numberice on the appellant to vacate the premises let out to her on the ground that she was in arrears of rent from July 1, 1950.
The learned trial Judge upheld both the pleas made by the respondents and passed a decree for eviction against the appellant.
Under the rent numbere, she is required to pay a monthly rent of Rs.
He held that the respondents reasonably and bona fide required the property for their personal use and that the appellant was in arrears of rent of more than six months.
57 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
The respondents then filed the present suit against the appellant on April 12, 1954, in which they asked for a decree for eviction against the appellant on the ground that they wanted the premises let out to the appellant bona fide for their personal use, and that the appellant was in arrears for more than six months.
Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the companystruction and effect of s. 12 3 a of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, No.
