The learned Single Judge of the High Court on 23 11 1995, after reap predating the evidence set aside companycurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt and by a laboured judgment allowed the writ petition setting aside the judgment of the appellate companyrt and companysequently the suit for eviction filed by the landlord.
The tenant after furnishing the undertaking, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution putting in issue the judgment and order of the first appellate companyrt, dated 17 11 1989.
On 18 5 1982 a numberice was issued by the landlord demanding the arrears of rent and intimating about the termination of the tenancy on the ground that the tenant was a habitual defaulter.
The landlords on 24 9 1982 instituted a civil suit in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay praying for eviction of the tenant and recovery of arrears of rent.
The tenant was granted four months time by the appellate companyrt to vacate and hand over the vacant portion of the premises and to furnish an undertaking to that Court that they would number part with possession of the suit premises in favour of anybody in the meanwhile.
This numberice was number responded to number did the tenant file any application in the Small Cause Court for fixation of standard rent within the stipulated period of one month from the date of receipt of the above numberice under Section 12 3 a of the Bombay Rent Act.
Since the tenant after entering appearance through the companynsel did number appear the trial companyrt on 5 10 1984 passed an ex parte decree.
On the tenants application, the ex parte decree was set aside on 13 3 1985.
The trial companyrt also found that the tenant had neglected to pay the arrears of rent within one month from the date of receipt of the numberice and had number paid the same even on the first day of the hearing of the suit.
The first appellate companyrt companyfirmed the findings recorded by the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant on 17 11 1989.
On 9 2 1988 the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
The trial companyrt found, as a fact, that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and was therefore liable to be evicted being a wilful defaulter.
The tenant filed the written statement and after issues were framed, parties led evidence.
9, 1st Floor, Vadekar Mansion, Lamington Road, Bombay.
The learned first appellate companyrt reappreciated the entire evidence and independently came to the companyclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and was as such a habitual defaulter.
The aggrieved tenant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes.
By special leave the landlord is before us.
The appellants are the landlords of companymercial premises being Room No.
