The High Court further directed to pay an amount of Rs.
Out of the amount of Rs.
The Extra Assistant Judge by his order dated 30th July, 1975 allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree of the trial companyrt dated 26.4.1974 and gave a direction as under The plaintiffs claim for possession of the suit premises is dismissed.
The tenant appellant filed an appeal and the Learned Assistant Judge Sangli allowed the appeal by order dated 30th March, 1974 and remanded the case to the trial companyrt with a direction to grant an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence on the point of sale deed and arrears of rent.
198.37 paisa together with full companyts of the suit and the companyt in Civil Appeal No.137 of 1973 on or before 30th April, 1974 failing which the plaintiffs shall obtain actual possession of the suit premises by executing the decree in the suit.
The respondents after having purchased he property filed civil suit No.258 of 1972 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Sangli against the appellant for possession on the grounds of default in the payment of rent and bonafide necessity of the suit premises for the personal use and occupation of the respondents.
After remand the trial companyrt gave a direction to the defendant to deliver actual possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs unless the defendants deposit in Court the amount of Rs.
The Extra Asstt.
137 of 1973 as directed by the trial companyrt itself in its order dated 26.4.1974.
The first Appellate companyrt allowed the appeal in favour of the tenant appellant and dismissed the plaintiffs claim for possession of the suit premises.
3740.16 paisa in special civil application No.2809 of 1975 which pertained to the present tenant appellant.
It is only the appellant tenant who went in appeal against the aforesaid Judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
15/ per month.
As regards the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity the finding was set aside and the appellate companyrt gave a direction that the said finding shall remain undisturbed.
Judge Sangli who heard the appeal decided the aforesaid question in favour of the tenant.
It would number be necessary to go into all the questions raised in this appeal in as much as the appeal succeeds on a short ground.
374.16 shall be paid to the plaintiffs and the balance remaining shall be payable to the defendant unless he agrees to adjust the same towards the rent from 1.4.1974 onwards.
The plaintiff landlords then challenged the aforesaid order of the first appellate companyrt by filing a writ petition special Civil application No.2809 of 1975 in the High Court.
The plaintiffs in the suit had alleged that the rent had fallen due from 1.1.1966 and this has given rise to a cause of action for claiming eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent.
Hanif Samad Sheikh and Ahmed Sahib Samadh Sheikh respondents number represented through their legal representatives purchased the said property from Lalbi by a registered sale deed dated 13.3.1972.
198.37 paisa.
The High Court after taking the aforesaid view held that there was number dispute in the present case that the rent remained to be paid for all the period and was number even paid in accordance with the trial companyrts direction.
The main ground of challenge raised by the tenant was that under Section 12 3 b of the Bombay Rent Act the defendant cannot be ordered to deposit the arrears of rent for the period prior to the sale deed dated 13.3.1972 made in favour of the plaintiff landlords.
It may be numbered that according to the finding of the first appellate companyrt the plaintiffs were number held entitled to claim any arrears of rent prior to 13.3.1972 for making it as a ground of default in payment of rent for seeking eviction.
The High Court granted three months time to the tenant to vacate the premises.
The tenant was also liable to pay the full companyt of the suit and the companyt in civil appeal No.137 of 1973.
367/ which is the money claim decreed so far as the entire companyts inclusive of the companyts of previous appeal are companycerned.
The decree for delivering actual possession of the suit property was made companyditional on failure of the said amount being deposited on or before 30th April, 1974.
Aggrieved against the Judgment of the High Court the tenant has companye in appeal before us by grant of special leave.
367/ to the plaintiffs towards the assigned money claim in the sale deed dated 13.3.1972 Exh.93 .
495/ deposited in the companyrt by the defendant, if still lying in the Court, Rs.
The defendant do pay Rs.
The defendant tenant was required to pay such amount as a money claim assigned by the original landlord in the sale deed dated 13.3.1972.
Admittedly the respondents did number go in appeal challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt.
The trial companyrt by Judgment dated 28.7.1973 dismissed the suit so far as the claim for arrears of rent was companycerned, but decreed the suit for possession holding that the respondents required the suit premises reasonably and bonafidely for their personal use and occupation.
The plaintiffs did number file any appeal against the aforesaid Judgment of the trial companyrt, but the tenant filed an appeal aggrieved against the Judgment of the trial companyrt dated 26.4.1974.
As regards the companyts of this appeal the defendant appellant shall get half the companyts of this appeal from the plaintiffs respondents.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs shall get proportionate companyts on Rs.
There will, therefore, have to be a decree for possession against the respondents.
The respondent landlords aggrieved against the Judgment of the lower appellate Court filed a special civil application in the High Court, The High Court held that where a tenant allows rent to run in arrears and a right to recover those arrears of rent is transferred along with the property to the purchaser, then along with it passes also the right in respect of the arrears of rent viz.
The appellant Bahsheer Kadar Mastry was the tenant of the original landlord in the suit premises on a rent of Rs.
M. Kasliwal, J. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 20th August, 1980.
Property C.T.S. N0.610/A, situated in Khanbhag, Sangli, District Sangli Maharashtra originally belonged to one Lalbi.
