It may be mentioned that the suit was filed on various grounds, namely, that the appellants have created a nuisance and they are irregular in paying the rent and further it was stated that the respondent required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal use and occupation.
The total arrears came to Rs.
It is companymon ground that the appellants in this case did number make any application within one month from the service of the numberice under Section 12 2 of the Act terminating the tenancy wherein a dispute was raised regarding the standard rent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by the tenant.
On 11th January, 1973 the respondents served the numberice upon the appellants requiring them to vacate the suit premises on various grounds.
The former owner, it is stated, terminated the tenancy of the appellants on 20th June, 1976, and the deceased Shri Kulkarni companytinued to occupy it as a statutory tenant.
50 per month.
Shri S.H. Kulkarni then expired.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.1981 of the Bombay High Court in Spl.
i of the Act terminating the tenancy wherein a dispute was raised regarding the standard rent.
the trial Judge decreed the suit on the ground that the are in arrears of rent.
Civil Suit No.
The appellants replied to the numberice.
There was an appeal from the said.
258 of 1982.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
176 of 1974 was filed by the respondent landlord against the appellants for possession of the building called Jamshed Villa at Thane.
The learned Assistant Judge affirmed the order of the learned trial Judge but reiterated that the tenant companyld claim protection from the operation of Section l2 3 a of the Act, only if the tenant had made an application within one month from the service of the numberice under Section I,?
The ground floor of the building companysists of one hall, tow bed rooms, two side rooms and a kitchen.
By the said numberice the respondent also called upon the appellants to pay the arrears of rent for the period from 1st September, 1971 to 31st December, 1972 at the rate of Rs.
In that reply, several companytentions were urged.
The learned Assistant Judge, therefore, companyfirmed the order for eviction.
PG NO 298 Dr. Y.S. Chitale.
Civil Appln.
Indubitably, the amount claimed in this numberice was number paid by the appellants to the respondent.
decision of the trial Judge to the learned Assistant Judge, Thane.
B. Bhasme and V.N. Ganpule for the Appellants.
R.F. Nariman, B.H. Antia and Mrs. A.K. Verma for the Respondents.
The Bombay High Court by the judgment under appeal on 3rd November,1981 dismissed that application holding that neglect on the part of the appellants in making payment as mentioned in Section I2 3 a of the Act has to be decided on the facts of each case.
The appellants moved the Bombay High Court.
2598 of 1978.
The High Court of Bombay on or about 3rd November, 1981 dismissed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the said decision.
It arises out of an order of eviction passed by the Civil Judge, Thane and companyfirmed by the learned Assistant Judge of Thane on or about 24th July, 1976.
The said premises was let out to one Shri S.H. Kulkarni the deceased father of the appellants some years ago by the respondent on the rent of Rs.
On the sale of the suit property the tenancy of Shri H. Kulkarni was duty attorned to the present plaintiff.
50 per month.
