Soon after the decree of the Trial Court in the aforesaid suit, the landlady issued a numberice terminating the tenancy for number payment of permissible increases for the period March 1, 1969 to March 29, 1972 in a sum of Rs.
In default, it was stated, the companyrt will companysider the request for expeditious trial of the suit.
Inasmuch as the appellant has deposited the amount due as entire companytemplated by the said clause, it held, a decree for eviction possession cannot be made.
He was permitted to do so on June 8 and on the same day, he deposited a sum of Rs.
The eviction petition filed by the landlady was dismissed by both the companyrts below but on a writ petition filed by her it was allowed by the High Court.
Though it is stated that these deposits were also made with the permission of the companyrt, it is number shown to us that the companyrt had companydoned the delays in depositing these various amounts.The suit was decreed on August 30, 1971 on the ground of sub letting alone.
This appeal is preferred by the tenant against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent landlady.
23.94p was deposited on February 9, 1977 and different amounts on June 1, 1977, August 1, 1977 and November 3, 1977.
All these deposits were numberdoubt made with the permission of the companyrt.
143.70p on November 15, 1976, a sum of Rs.
The companyrt found that the case was governed by Clause b of Sub section 3 of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act and number by Clause a of the Act.
It is recorded in the order of the High Court that he deposited a sum of Rs.
It, however, passed a decree for money.
On April 10, 1965 the respondent landlady filed a suit 668 of 1965 for eviction of the appellant on the ground of sub letting and her own bonafide requirement.
2,082.75p representing the total amount due till that date.
The appellant filed an appeal on October 15, 1971 which was allowed on July 12, 1973.
The issues were framed in the suit on April 4, 1972.
100/ exclusive of water charges, education cess and charges for amenities.
The landlady preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Court.
2, F Building, Vijay Colony, Juhu Lane, Andheri West , Bombay on a monthly rent of Rs.
According to the agreement, the landlord agreed to adjust Rs.
The said loan and the terms of repayment are recorded in a registered agreement dated December 15, 1962.
The order further directed that the tenant should companytinue to deposit, the said charges every month.
23.94p on February 9, 1977.
In other words, even the amount which was number recoverable in law was also deposited by him.
Inasmuch as the appellant deposited the amount due as companytemplated by the said clause, it affirmed the decree of the Trial Court.
It is this suit we are companycerned with in this appeal.
It is the said order which was questioned by the landlady by way of a writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
On April 4, 1975 the Trial Court passed an order directing the tenant to deposit the entire amount due till then on account of permissible increases within six weeks of the said order.
The respondent purchased the flat on January 7, 1963, subject to the said agreement.
The appellant did number deposit either the arrears or the monthly rent for the period subsequent to the order.
71.85p on January 7, 1977 and a sum of Rs.
The tenant was to pay the balance Rs.
By his judgment and decree dated September 29, 1977, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
23.94p .
Even subsequent to the order dated June 4, 1976 the appellant was regular in depositing the amounts.
The matter arises under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as Bombay Rent Act .
10,000/ by way of companystruction loan to the original landlord.
65/ per month out of the rent payable towards the loan.
On June 4, 1976 the appellant filed an application seeking extension of time to deposit the amount which he was asked to deposit under the order dated April 4, 1975 and for the period subsequent to the said order.
The permissible charges payable by the appellant per month were determined in a separate proceeding at Rs.
The appellant says further that on March 8, 1979 he also deposited the amount which was number claimed in the suit on the ground that it was barred by time.
The appellant had advanced a sum of Rs.
2,483.94 p. On March 3, 1972 she filed the suit for evicting the tenant and for recovery of the said permissible increases.
35/ in cash.
Sometime in early 1975, the landlady applied for expediting the hearing of the suit.
The appellant is the tenant of Flat No.
Subsequently, he deposited the said amounts on June 1, 1977, August 1, 1977 and November 3, 1977.
