The 1st respondent was the owner of the suit premises.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit in favour of both the plaintiffs but the appellate companyrt altered the same and gave a decree exclusively in favour of the 2nd plaintiff.
1 sold the suit premises to his wife, respondent No.
In his reply the appellant pleaded that the standard rent of the premises is much less than the rent fixed under the companytract and the rent payable has been duly discharged in accordance with the adjustment put forward therein.
Thereafter this appeal was filed after obtaining special leave from this companyrt.
Respondent No.
The case of the 1st respondent is that the appellant defaulted in the payment of rent from the year 1950.
The High Court summarily dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.
The ejectment of the appellant was sought on various grounds but at present we are companycerned with only one of them namely failure to pay the rent due for more than six months.
Though the appellant raised the dispute as regards the standard rent payable he did number file any application for fixation of standard rent till April 18, 1958.
1 filed the suit from which this appeal has arisen on August 4, 1958.
2 who was thereafter impleaded in the suit as supplemental 2nd plaintiff.
During the pendency of the suit respondent No.
The appellant was the tenant under him in respect of the same.
The 1st respondent issued to the appellant an ejectment numberice on December 12, 1955.
Hegde, J. Mr. Chhaya, learned Counsel for the appellant formulated three questions for decision in this appeal by special leave and those are 1 the appellate companyrt erred in holding that it had numberjurisdiction to give the appellant the benefit oi Section 12 3 b of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for brevity sake to be hereinafter referred to as the Act 2 the numberice of ejectment issued under Section 12 2 of the Act is invalid and 3 the transferee landlord was number entitled to take advantage of the default in the payment of rent to the transferor landlord.
The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are these.
