Since the tenant had failed to pay or deposit the arrears claimed by the eviction numberice dated 31.12.1984 within one month from the receipt thereof, the Court held he was liable to be evicted under section 12 3 a of the Act but in view of the substituted Section 12 3 , he was entitled to protection as he had paid the entire arrears together with interest and companyts before the passing of the decree.
The learned Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune raised issues at Exh.
Consequently, the first respondent filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal on 26th February, 1985, being Civil Suit No.
150 in respect of the garage .
The High Court observed that the eviction numberice was legal and proper and the lower appellate companyrt was right in companycluding that the appellant had sub let the premises to the second respondent as alleged.
He denied the allegation that he had sub let the premises or had aparted with the possession thereof in favour of the second respondent or that he was guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance to the neighbours.
348 of 1985, seeking eviction on four grounds, namely, i the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and had failed and neglected to pay the amount due within one month from the date of receipt of the eviction numberice, ii the tenant had raised a permanent structure in the suit premises in breach of section 13 1 b of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act , iii the tenant was guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance to the neighbors and iv the tenant had sub let the premises to second respondent without his companysent.
Thus the tenant was required to pay a companysolidated sum of Rs.
The first respondent, felling aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his suit, preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No.
120 per month by way of education cess and other taxes.
The tenant had also failed to pay the tax amount at the rate of Rs.
He also companycluded that the tenant had failed to pay the rent in respect of the garage from November, 1979 and in respect of hotel from June, 1983.
The writ petition was rejected at the admission stage by a short speaking order.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.1989 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
The appellant tenant, feeling aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Pune, preferred a writ petition No.
25 and the supplementary written statements Exhs.
900 per month Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. This is a tenants appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the High Court of Maharashtra at Bombay whereby it companyfirmed the eviction order passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No.
120 per month for education cess and other taxes.
During the pendenacy of the suit Section 12 3 of the Act was amended by Section 25 of the Amendment Act 18 of 1987 whereby clauses a and b of sub section 3 of section 12 were deleted and instead a new sub section 3 was substituted which restricted the companyrts right to pass a decree for eviction on the ground of arrears o standard rent and permitted increases, if on the first date of the hearing of the suit or on such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant paid or tendered in companyrt the standard rent and permitted increase then due together with simple interest on the amount of arrears at the rate of 9 per annum and thereafter companytinued to pay or tender in companyrt regularly such standard rent and permitted increases till the final decision of the suit and also paid the companyt of the suit as directed by the companyrt.
The suit was companytested by the appellant tenant by his written statement Exh.
120 per month by way of education cess and other taxes in respect of the demised premises.
He, therefore, companytended that the suit was liable to fail.
1020 for month of January, 1985 together with Rs.
120 per month from 1st June, 1983.
The second respon dent, the alleged sub tenant, adopted the written statement of the appellant by his purshis Exh.
The appellant companytended that the said amendment had retrospective effect and he was entitled to the benefit thereof.
M. Tarkunde, Ejaz Iqbal, H.S. Anand, R.F. Nariman and D. Adhar for the Respondents.
In the said eviction suit the first respondent claimed the arrears of rent upto the end of December, 1984 as set out in the eviction numberice and damages of Rs.
5021 of 1989 to the High Court.
The first respondent, therefore, served the appellant with a numberice terminating the tenancy by the end of 31st January, 1985 and called upon the appellant to pay the arrears of rent and vacate and handover peaceful possession of the demised premises by that date.
The appellate companyrt reversed the decree of the trial companyrt holding that the rent was payable by the month and there being numberdispute regarding standard rent and permitted increases and the tenant having failed to pay the arrears within one month from the date of receipt of a valid eviction numberice dated 31st December, 1984, he was liable to be evicted under section 12 3 a of the Act since the amended section 12 3 introduced by Amending Act 18 of 1987 was prospective in nature.
900 per month and in addition thereto the tenant had agreed to pay Rs.
So far as the other two companytentions regarding raising of a permanent structure and allegation of nuisance and annoyance were companycerned, the appellate companyrt companycurred with the findings recorded by the trial companyrt.
He also held that there was numberreliable evidence to show that the tenant had sub let the premises or had made any alteration of a permanent nature without the companysent of the first respondent.
By 31st December, 1984 the appellant tenant had failed to pay the rent in respect of the hotel premises from 1st June, 1983 and in respect of the garage area from 1st November, 1979 thus the arrears of rent in respect of hotel premises came to Rs.16,530 and in respect of the garage premises Rs.9,300 aggregating to Rs.25,830.
It also took the view that since the premises was sub let by the appellant to the second respondent on a rental of Rs.
As the appellant companymitted a default in the payment of rent from June, 1983 to December, 1984 in respect of hotel portion and from November, 1979 to December, 1984 in respect of the garage, the first respondent despatched a numberice dated 31st December, 1984 terminating the appellants tenancy as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the alternative he also companytended that he had paid the rent to the first respondent but the latter had failed to issue rent receipts.
56 and 60 filed after the amendments in the plaint.
By clause 3 of the agreement the appellant undertook to pay a total rent of Rs.
1,000 per month for the demised premises Rs.900 for the hotel portion and Rs.
He also questioned the validity of the numberice terminating his tenancy.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order the tenant has preferred the present appeal after obtaining special leave.
662/88.
on these findings the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit with numberorder as to companyts.
Since there was numberdispute in regard to standard rent or permitted increases in this case, the tenant was under an obligation to pay the entire amount due from him by way of rent and taxes within one month of the receipt of the eviction numberice dated 31st December, 1984.
36 and came to the companyclusion that the agreed rent for the hotel and the garage was Rs.
348/85 on 30th April, 1988.
Clause 5 of the agreement prohibited sub letting of the premises or parting with the possession thereof in any other manner.
662 of 1988 in reversal of the order of dismissal of the suit passed by the Learned Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune, in Civil Suit No.
The said premises were taken on rent for the purposes of restaurant business on monthly rental basis.
The allegation that he had raised a structure of a permanent nature in the hotel premises without the permission of first respondent was also disputed.
On the failure of the appellant to companyply with the requirement of the eviction numberice, the first respondent filed a suit for eviction on 26th February, 1985 on the grounds stated earlier.
In addition thereto the tenant had undertaken to pay a lump sum of Rs.
100 for the garage the said rent being payable every month in advance.
1020 per months as rent to the first respondent.
1205/2/9 situate at Shivaji nagar, Pune city, more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the said agreement.
750 in respect of the hotel premises and Rs.
The allegation of nuisance and annoyance was held number proved on facts and was even otherwise found to relate to a post suit incident of 1986.
The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under On 5th February, 1976 the appellant executed a lease agreement in respect of a part of the ground floor of property bearing City Survey No.
The request for extention of time to vacate was rejected as the tenant was unwilling to file an undertaking in the usual form.
5020 of 1989.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, V.N. Ganpule, B. Rastogi, Ms. Suman and Ms. Punam Kumari for the Appellant.
Even after the receipt of this numberice, the appellant neither paid the amount due within one month of the receipt of the numberice number filed any application for fixation of standard rent and or the permitted increases under section 11 of the Act.
The standard rent in respect of the demised premises has been found by all the three companyrts to be Rs.
The appellant failed to respond to the said numberice and neglected to pay the amount of arrears of rent claimed therein within one month from the date of receipt of the numberice.
5021 of 1989.
It was proved as a fact that the tenant had failed to pay the rent in respect of the garage from 1st November, 1979 and the rent in respect of the hotel from 1st June,1983.
