It was held that even assuming that the numberice had been served yet the case did number fall under Section 12 3 a of the Act.
It was held that on the point of service of numberice the case of the plaintiff was rather companyfusing and number clear.
The trial companyrt held that the service of numberice dated 7.8.1980 on the defendant tenants was number held proved.
The plaintiffs were unable to prove that the postal acknowledgement Exhibit 51 Contained the signatures of defendant number2 or 3.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.1991 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No 3580 of 1991.
55,800 on 16.1.1984 and thereafter made regular payment of Rs.
The trial companyrt also held that the case did number fall under Section 12 3 b of the Act as the defendants had paid Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
600 every month.
The tenants filed the writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, But the same was dismissed and the decree for possession passed by the Additional District Judge was affirmed.
4134 of 1991.
P.Pathak and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.
The suit was dismissed by the 7th Additional Small Causes Judge.
M. Khanwilkar and S.K. Parshankar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 30th August, 1991 in a suit for possession under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
On appeal the learned 10th Additional District Judge, Pune by Judgment dated 25.4.1991 set aside the order of the trial companyrt and decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession.
