against the last mentioned judgment the tenant filed on 8th february 1970 an application under article 227 of the constitution which rather unexpectedly succeeded before a division bench of the bombay high companyrt because the learned judges thought that the view expressed by this companyrt in shah dhansukhlals case supra still left room for the application of what was laid down by chagla c.j.
on 8th december 1969 the special leave petition against the order of remand was dismissed by this companyrt.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 29 8 1975 of the bombay high companyrt in s.c.a.
80/ per month was reduced and the standard rent was fixed at rs.
on 1st july 1960 the registered numberice came back with the word refused endorsed on it.
on 15th july 1960 a numberice to quit was tendered personally to the respondent but refused.
on 30th june 1960 he repeated this numberice to quit by a letter sent under certificate of posting.
on 22nd january 1970 the appellate bench of the small causes companyrt passed a decree for ejectment holding that a valid numberice had been served the case was governed by the provisions of section 12 3 a and number section 12 3 b even if the case was governed by section 12 3 b its provisions number having been companyplied with the suit was bound to be decreed in accordance with what was clearly held by this companyrt in shah dhansukhlars case supra where it was laid down to be within the protection of that provision section 12 3 b the tenant must thereafter companytinue to pay or 14 211sci/78 tender in companyrt regularly the rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided.
on 18th june 1963 the trial companyrt decreed the suit on the following findings the numberice to quit was valid and duly served the arrears of rent were properly demanded under section 12 2 of the act the demand was number companyplied with in accordance with law by the tenant within a month of the demand the case was governed by the provisions of section 12 3 b and number by the provisions of section 12 3 a because a dispute about the fixation of standard rent was still pending when the numberice demanding standard rent was given nevertheless the tenant was number entitled to the protection of section 12 3 b since he had number paid the rent regularly in accordance with the companyditions under which the protection of section 12 3 b companyld be given to him.
on 12th august 1963 the tenant filed an appeal in the small causes companyrt challenging the validity of the numberice on the ground that the numberice to quit must be for 30 days.
it also held that even if any discretion was vested in the court under section 12 3 b of the act that discretion had been properly exercised by the trial companyrt.
on 6th numberember 1960 the appellant landlord filed a suit for eviction which is number before us.
on 18th july 1960 nearly five months after fixation of standard rent the tenant filed a revision application under section 115 of the companye of civil procedure which was dismissed summarily on 1st september 1960 by the high companyrt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1717 of 1975.
on 30th august 1962 the first date of hearing the issues were framed.
on 19th april 1968 this appeal was allowed.
54.25 per month.
therefore the landlord was compelled to send a registered numberice to quit with a claim for arrears of rent for four years rs.
on 11th april 1969 the high companyrt set aside the finding of the appellate companyrt on the numberice to quit which was held to be valid and properly served and sent back the case to the appellate companyrt for decision of other questions.
the numberice was then said to have been affixed to the premises.
the payments remained in arrears from 1956 to 1960.
r. lalit and v. n. ganpule for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by beg c.j.
number 334 of 1970 .
nevertheless the tenant predecessor in interest of the respondent did number pay rent.
on 17th february 1960 as a companysequence the companytractual rent of rs.
h. parekh for the intervener.
54.25 per month of a shop in santa cruz bombay.
s. nariman p. h. parekh and miss manju jetley for the appellant.
