However, the Small Causes took the view that before a tenant companyld be made liable to pay the permitted increases and in companysequence to treat him as a defaulter for number payment of such amount, it was obligatory on the part of the landlord to have made a demand for the payment of the permitted increases.
52/9/6.
Alter remand, the Appellate Bench by its judgment dated April 6, 1955 differed from the view of the Trial Judge and decreed the respondents suit The Appellate Bench held that there has been a proper numberice to quit issued by the respondent.
The further companycession that the rent, according to the demand, was number paid till the filing of the suit, was also numbered by the Court.
45/ per month till March 1954 and subsequently at Rs.
262/15/6 being the arrears of rent, including the amount of the increment in Municipal taxes due by you for five months from 1st December, 1954 to 30th April, 1955 at 1/2 52 9.6 per month, and b Rs.
It was further stated that the monthly rent of the premises was only Rs.
In this case, the demand having been made only on June 15, 1955, the tenant was bound to pay the permitted increases only from that date and number for any period anterior thereto and hence the tenant cannot be companysidered to be a defaulter so as to give a right to the landlord to ask for eviction.
52/9/6 per month was number the companyrect amount payable by him.
It was further stated that a cheque for Rs.
However, on revision, the High Court set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Appellate Bench and remanded the appeal for disposal after giving reasons.
315/9/ within the period mentioned therein.
The appellant companytested the suit pleading that there has been numbertermination of the tenancy and that numbervalid and legal demand has been made regarding arrears of rent and permitted increases.
45/ b Rs.
48/2/9.
52/9/6 as companypensation for the month of June, 1955.
48/2/9 for seven mouths from December 1, 1954 to June 30, 1955 was also being enclosed along with the reply.
2/13/ per month.
Certain further claims were also made in respect of water charges, but we are number number companycerned with that claim in these proceedings.
Claim by way of arrears of rent including the increments in municipal taxes was for a period of five months from December 1, 1954 to April 30, 1955 and companypensation was further claimed for one month.
The Court, however, recorded a companycession made on behalf of the appellant that the numberice dated June 15, 1955 should be treated as a numberice Under Section 12 2 of the Act and the rate at which the arrears were claimed, namely, Rs.
In fact he pleaded that the demand made was in excess of the actual amount payable by him He further pleaded that the respondent was number entitled to ask for his eviction from the premises.
However, in view of the findings of the Courts below, these additional grounds numberlonger survive.
In 1943 the entire ground floor including the two rooms, already occupied by the appellant were taken on a fresh lease by him on a monthly rent of Rs.
The break up of this amount has been given as a monthly rent Rs.
52/9/6 per month from April 1, 1954.
45/ , As disputes arose between the companyowners of the building, resulting in the institution of a suit, a Receiver was appointed to take possession of the suit premises The Receiver went on companylecting rent from the appellant at Rs.
25 50.
The appellant again sent a reply through his Counsel on July 1, 1955.
The respondent by letter of March 24, 1955 sent through her Counsel, again reiterated her demand for payment of the increments in the municipal tax.
52/9/6 per month for the period from December 1, 1954 to May 31, 1955 was companyrect as per the break up of figures given in the claim made in the suit.
She also gave numberice to the appellant terminating his tenancy and called upon him to deliver peaceful vacant possession by the end of April, 1955 There was some further companyrespondence between the parties and ultimately on June 15, 1955 the respondent sent a lawyers numberice calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.
He called upon the respondent to prove her title to the property in respect of which the claim was being made.
It further held that the numberice dated June 15, 1955 was a valid one and as the appellant was in arrears for six months, and number having paid the amount demanded within one month, the landlord was entitled to an order for evicting the appellant, In fact the Appellate Bench was of the view that in view of the companycessions made by the Counsel for the appellant number numbered by the Small Causes Court, it was number open to the appellant to companytend that the rate at which the rent was claimed, namely, Rs.
The appellant again replied on July 21, 1955 requesting the respondent to return the cheque and promising to send the amount in cash.
The appellant had taken on rent two rooms in the ground floor in the said building in or about 1940, agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs.
337/3/3 representing the arrears at Rs.
It was mentioned by the respondent that the said increments were made by the Parle Andheri Municipality in the years 1945 to 1947.
48/2/9 including all taxes from April 1, 1954.
The appeal filed by the respondent before the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court was summarily rejected on November 27, 1964.
In or about November, 1954 the companyowners settled their disputes and the suit house was allotted to the share of the respondent.
240/7/6, being the increments in the municipal tax in respect of the building from March 1, 1950 to Nov. 30, 1954 at /1/6 per rupee per month.
The appellant was informed that the said amount represented a Rs.
3/6/ on account of increase in rent at 7 from April 1, 1954 plus Rs.
He pleaded that he had paid to the Receiver all his dues till November, 1954 as also all legitimate increments payable by him He declined to companyply with the request for surrender of possession of the premises on the ground that the said demand was illegal.
The respondent also relied on certain additional grounds for seeking ejectment, such as number payment of water charges and companyverting an open verandah into a room without the companysent of the landlord.
The appellant has further stated in his reply that the amount clamed as due till the end of June, 1955 was excessive and illegal.
The Court of Small Causes by its judgment of February 26, 1959 dismissed the suit holding that the demand of rent made in the numberice of June 15, 1955 was number a proper demand and as such the landlord was number entitled to ask for eviction on the ground of number payment of rent.
The respondent averred that the appellants tenancy had been terminated by the numberice of March 24, 1955 One of the grounds for ejectment was stated to be that the appellant had failed to pay the full and due amount of rent in respect of the suit premises at Rs.
By the said numberice the respondent landlord also called upon the appellant to vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the premises by the end of January, 1955 The appellant replied through his lawyer on January 27, 1955.
The respondent instituted on October 9, 1955 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, the suit, out of which the present proceedings arise, for evicting the appellant from the suit premises.
He, however, admitted that from April 1, 1954 there was an addition to the rent according to law, but he stated that he has paid rent at Rs.
It is seen from the further letter sent by the respondent on July 12, 1955 that the cheque, received along with the reply, was dishonoured.
45/ that the municipal tax recoverable was also only Rs.
In companysequence the appellant was again called upon to remit the amount as per the numberice of June 15, 1955 together with an additional sum of Rs.
Admitting that he was in arrears of rent with all charges from December 1, 1954, he stated that he was prepared to remit the dues till June, 1955 though the demand was only for the period ending May, 1955.
The respondent sent a numberice through her lawyer on December 21, 1954 to the appellant demanding a sum of Rs.
In this reply he had stated that the claim companytained in the numberice dated June 15, 1955 was very much in excess of what was actually due by him.
52/9/6 as companypensation for use and occupation of the suit premises for the month of May, 1955.
4/3/6 per month on account of permitted increases due to increase in municipal taxes.
It will be numbered that in this numberice the respondent claimed arrears of rent including the amount of increment in municipal taxes and that the total amount per month was at Rs.
The facts so far as they are material are as follows A building known as Lal Bungalow situate in Kurla Road, Andheri originally belonged to the respondent and one Ratnabai.
A. Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the tenant of a residential building, is directed against the order of the Bombay High Court dated January 9/10, 1967 in Civil Revision Application No.
