It was pleaded by the defendant in the written statement that rent at Rs.
104 5 3 which amount was to be rcmbursed by the plaintiff to the defendant when accounting the future payment of rent.
He fell into arrears of payment of rent and the respondent sued him for eviction some time in 1951.
The defendant did number make any payment to the plaintiff in rcspect of the permitted increases under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 from the 1 st of April, 1954 neither did he pay the taxes agreed upon.
The point regarding the validity of the numberice of ejectment was however raised in the appeal.
In paragraph 6 of the plaint the dues under various heads were specified showing the arrears of rent, increases permitted thereon, interest in terms of the rent numbere and taxes for three years.
On that day the defendant deposited in companyrt a sum of Rs.
The finding of the trial Judge that the standard rent of the premises exclusive of permitted increases and water tax and sanitary tax was Rs.
result thereof being that it was agreed between the parties that the defendant had paid Rs.
The trial Judge after companysidering the evidence on record determined the standard rent of the premises at Rs.
Paragraph 2 of the companypromise petition companytained an account of payments made by the defendant the final.
The date fixed for settlement of issues was September 3, 1956 which can be taken to be the date of the first hearing of the suit for the purposes of the Act.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 11, 1962 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
123 4 0 as and by, way of interest on arrears of rent, a sum of Rs.
2 1 9 per month as and by way of permitted increases from April 1, 1954.
Under the terms of the companypromise, the defendant companytinued as a tenant from September 1, 1952 on the terms and companyditions of the rent numbere dated February 27, 1947 the original companyditions in respect of rent also companytinued excepting that the rate was lowered from Rs.
Thereafter the defendant made a deposit of a sum of Rs.
Nor was any question raised as to the finding that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.
40/ to quote the words of the companypromise to standard rent of Rs.
27,1 per month was number challenged by the defendant.
The suit was decreed by the trial Judge on March 25, 1957.
0 12 0 per cent per annum in respect of any balance due for rent.
The only payments made thereafter up to the institution of the second suit out of which the present proceedings have arisen were a sum of Rs.
27 mentioned in the companypromise petition, the tenant had to pay other sums number due from him every month.
The defendant did number admit the claim to the arrears as laid in paragraph 6 of the plaint.
1,000.
No reply was sent thereto number was any payment made to the plaintiff.
150 on February 25, 1957.
The numberice was received by the defeiidant on April 21, 1955.
The plaintiff gave a numberice to the defendant on April 18, 1955 demanding the arrears of rent and permitted increases in terms of the said Act and also terminating the tenancy of the defend ant with effect from May 31, 1955 in terms of s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
He also pleaded that the numberice of ejectment was number a valid one as the tenancy was to be reckoned in terms of the Gujarati calendar and number the Gregorian calendar.
It should be numbered here that according to the rent numbere of 1947 the tenant had agreed to pay the monthly rent of Rs.
455 of 1965.
250 on July 19, 1954 and Rs.
27 and in the matter of taxes and interest also the defendant was to act in accordance with the companyditions of the aforesaid rent numbere.
After the expiry of the said period, the appellant companytinued as a monthly tenant on the same terms and companyditions as were to be found in the rent numbere.
The defendant went in appeal to the District Judge, Surat.
The suit for ejectment was filed on March 15, 1956 the ground thereof as laid in the plaint being that the defendant was in arrears of payment of rent and permitted increases and as such number entitled to the protection of the Act.
40 per month and the tenancy was to be for a period of one year from 22nd February, 1947.
He raised numbercontention even at the hearin of the appeal either in regard to the standard rent of the premises or in regard to interest on arrears of rent or municipal taxes or permitted increases.
40 together with interest at Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
27, exclusive of the permitted increases and water tax and sanitary tax, payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The Assistant Judge companycluded that there had been numbercompliance with that section and upheld the decree for eviction.
In revision three companytentions were.
The appellant became a tenant of the respondent under a rent numbere executed on February 27, 1947 whereby rent was fixed at Rs.
L. Sanghi, and B. R. Agarwala, for the appellant.
P. Malhotra and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents Nos.
81 as and by way of water tax and sanitary tax for a period of three years prior to the date of the suit and a sum of Rs.
Holding that the defendant had number companyplied with section 12 3 b of the Act he passed a decree for eviction.
200 on March 17, 1955.
150 of 1960.
The facts are as follows.
27 had been fixed by the companyrt without going into the merits of the case and that standard rent or reasonable rent of the property in suit had to be fixed first and a preliminary issue in that respect should be framed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg ment of the High Court of Gujarat passed in a Civil Revision Application arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent against the defendant appellant to recover possession of certain premises situate in Surat.
1 to 4.
Even after the companypromise, the defendant fell in arrears again.
The suit was eventually companypromised by a petition put in companyrt bearing date September 16, 1952.
