The tenants went in appeal to the City Civil Court.
It is from that order that the present appeals have been filed by the land lady by special leave.
The tenants did number pay up number did they send a reply to the numberice.
Under the law, they were liable to be evicted for being in arrears for more than six months.
Abdul Kadar did number pay the rent from 1st November, 1956 to 31st August, 1957 and similarly Abdul Rahim was in arrears of rent from 1st February, 1957 to 31st August, 1957.
4613/1957 and the other being 2612/1957.
A Preliminary objection seems to have been raised before the High Court on behalf of the land lady that a revision did number lie and under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act in its application to Gujarat, the Order passed by the City Civil Court was final and since numberquestion under Section 115 CPC arose the revision was number maintainable.
Bai Hiragauri the appellant, is the aggrieved land lady and the respondents Abdul Kadar Mamadji and Abdul Rahim Musaji respectively are the tenants.
1155 on a monthly rent of Rs.
1155/2 3 and the monthly rent was Rs.
The suits were for their eviction.
The learned Single Judge, who heard the Revision applications, relying upon a previous judgment of that companyrt, held that since the rent was number payable by the month as required by Section 12 3 a referred to above the cases fell within Section 12 3 b of the Act and, therefore, decrees for eviction companyld number be passed.
The appeals were disposed of on January 31, 1952.
446 of 1962 and 569 of 1962 respectively.
The appeals were heard together and the learned City Judge who heard the appeals companyfirmed the findings and the decrees of the Trial Court.
So the land lady filed two separate suits one being Civil Suit No.
As required by law the land lady gave them numberice of eviction on 12 9 1957 calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent and to quit and deliver up vacant possession of the shops in their possession on or before the 30th SEPTEMBER, 1957.
The tenants had agreed to bear the dues in respect of municipal taxes and companysumption of electricity.
From this judgment the two tenants filed Civil Revision Applications to the High Court.
The Trial Court by its judgment dated the 17th November, 1960 held that the tenants were in arrears for more than the statutory six months that the standard rent was the same as claimed by the land lady that the tenants were liable to pay the municipal tax in addition and that in view Section 12 3 a of the Bombay Rent Act, as applied to the Gujarat area, both the tenants were liable to be evicted.
23/ and Abdul Rahim was let out another shop bearing No.
The suits were companytested.
Both the suits were companysolidated and disposed of together.
Abdul Kadar was let out the premises bearing No.
Palekar, J. These are appeals by special leave from the judgment and Order dated October 18, 1966 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Applications Nos.
