the landlord had brought a suit for arrears of rent amounting to rs.
it therefore decreed the suit for ejectment.
on 5 1 1970 the landlord had served a numberice upon the tenant terminating the tenancy on the ground that dues amounting to rs.
1227.67 had number been paid.
the service of the above mentioned number tice.
18th l9th september 1975 in civil revision appln.
hence the suit for ejectment companyld number be decreed.
hence no standard rent companyld be fixed u s. 11.
the tenant filed an application for fixation of the standard rent within a month of.
27.49 paid as house tax and anumberher sum of rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 217 of 1976.
210.18 paid by the landlord for the electricity companysumed by the tenant.
990/ from 6 3 67 to 5 12 69 and also to recover a sum of rs.
27.49 as house tax and rs.
on these appli cations the interim rent was fixed at rs.
although the trial companyrt held the numberice terminating the tenancy to be legally valid and the agreed rate of rent to be rs.
30/ p.m. so that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree for arrears of rent from 6 3 67 to 5 12 1969 and also the amount of rs.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the gujarat high companyrt dt.
he also filed an application for fixation of interim rent on the ground that he being a poor man was unable to pay rent and the total amount due at once.
delivered by beg c.j.
30/ and that the tenant had also to pay the charges for electricity companysumed by him.
number 67 of 1973.
the judgment of the companyrt was.
it was however at first disputed whether the tenant had to pay house tax and the education cess also.
v. goswami for the respondent.
25/ and the applicant was directed to deposit arrears of rent and future rent at this rate on or before 10th of the next month.
this is a landlords appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of gujarat allowing a revision application of the tenant under section 29 2 of the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates companytrol act 1947 thereinaf ter referred to as the act it appears from the statement of facts in the judgment of the high companyrt that there was numberdispute that the monthly rent of the premises was rs.
the appellate companyrt on the other hand held that the unwilling ness of the defendant respondent to pay the rent which was apparent from the patent facts and admissions and companyduct of the defendant respondent disentitled him for protection sought.
h. parekh ajit r. oza kailash vasdev and miss manju jariey for the appellant.
