It was said that only when an order determining the amount of companyts had been made by the companyrt that the tenant companyld be said to be within the mischief of the provisions of the statute for number payment of companyts so determined by the companyrts.
The appellant companyld be entitled to protection against eviction only if the appellant companyplied with the provisions of the statute.
Secondly, the appellant stated before the trial companyrt that the appellant was number in a position to tender what is described as professional companyts and companyrt companyts of the suit.
The appeal is from the judgment of the High Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 19, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
It is indisputable that in the trial companyrt the appellant number only admitted failure to pay companyts but also inability to tender the companyts.
First, though a formal order as to companyts was number made, yet the trial companyrt had made an order directing the appellant to pay the amount of companyts and the appellant did number pay the companyts.
M. Tarkunde, P. C. Bhartari, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
On 25 April, 1955 a suit was filed for eviction of the appellant.
During the pendency of the suit on 29 June, 1956, the standard rent was fixed at Rs.55/7/ p.m. The companytractual rent was Rs.
K. Sen, M. S. Gupta and S. L. Jain, for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial companyrt passed an ejectment decree against the appellant.
36 of 1968.
The appellant was tenant of the respondent.
The appellant then filed an application for revision in the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 19 November, 1963 of the High Court of Bombay dismis sing the appellant defendant tenants application for revision in a decree for eviction of the defendant.
85/ p.m. When the suit came up for hearing on 5 October, 1956, it appeared that the appellant paid all the arrears of rent in accordance with the standard rent but did number pay the Costs of the suit.
During the pendency of the application the respondent landlady served a numberice on the appellant in the month of March, 1955 terminating the tenancy on the ground that the appellant had failed to pay rent from I March, 1954.
in the companyrt the standard rent and permitted increase in rent due, and thereafter companytinues to pay or tender in companyrt regularly the said rent and permitted increase till the suit is finally decided and also pays companyts of the suit as directed by the Court.
The appellant preferred an appeal.
167 of 1959.
On 28 April, 1954 the appellant filed an application under section II of the Bombay Rent Act for fixation of standard rent.
The appellant was required to tender number only the arrears of rent but .also the, companyts of the suit.
The High Court rightly rejected the companytention for two reasons.
In the trial companyrt the appellant admitted number compliance with the provisions of the statute.
