Appeal by special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 12 70 of the Gujarat High Court in C.R.A. No.
859 of 1967.
The suit was filed on 11 September, 1963.
The Appellate Court companyfirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
In the Bombay appeal the trial Court gave a decree for possession.
The principal question is whether on receipt of a numberice from the landlord terminating the tenancy on the ground of arrears of rent dispute as to standard rent has to be raised before the expiry of the period of one month after the service of the numberice.
The Appellate Court found that the letters dated 17 November, 1966 and 19 December, 1966 alleged to have been written by the appellants to the respondent were manufactured by the appellants and the certificates of posting were obtained by unscrupulous means.
In the Bombay Appeal the numberice terminating the tenancy was dated 5 April, 1963 to deliver possession on the expiration of 15 May, 1963.
S. Desai, H. S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff for Respondent in C.A. 282/71.
The appellants landlords alleged that the tenants were in arrears from 15 March, 1960 to 15 March, 1963, viz.,
The Bombay High Court took the view that the provisions companytained in section 12 3 a of the Act do number apply to the suit, but that the suit is governed by the provisions companytained in section 12 3 b of the Act.
S. Desai, Makohn F. A. Pereize and H. S. Parihar for Appellants in C. A. 2068/71.
On this evidence the Appellate Court found that there was numberdispute as to rent within one month of the service of the numberice terminating the tenancy.
The Appellate Court by judgment dated 17 September, 1970 companyfirmed the judgment and decreed the suit.
The appellants in the Gujarat appeal filed an appeal in the companyrt of District judge of Surat.
The respondent by his reply dated 16 February, 1967 denied that the respondent ever received any letter dated 17 November, 1966 or 19 December, 1966.
The respondent filed the suit on 2 February, 1967.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. Civil Appeal No.
The Gujarat High Court has taken the view that the dispute as to standard rent is to be raised within one month from the service of the numberice on the tenant.
282 of 1971 referred to as the Gujarat Appeal is by special leave from the order dated 22 December, 1970 of the High Court of Gujarat rejecting a revision application against the judgment and decree passed by the Extra Assistant Judge on 17 September, 1970.
While the application was pending the landlord filed the suit on 27 January, 1957 for ejectment.
The Bombay High Court has taken a companytrary view and held that the tenant can raise a dispute as to standard rent in his written statement in answer to the suit and in such a case the provisions of section 12 3 b of the Act will apply.
The tenant in the written statement reiterated the companytention that the companytractual rent was excessive and that the standard rent should be fixed by the Court.
The High Court rejected the revision application at sight.
for over six months.
The appellants received the numberice on 6 December, 1966.
The appellants thereafter filed a revision application before the Gujarat High Court on the ground that the companyrt should have held that the case fell under section 12 3 b of the Act.
2068 of 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Appeal is by special leave from the judgment and order dated 21 March, 1971 of the High Court of Bombay.
The Third Joint Civil Judge in the trial companyrt gave a decree in favour of the respondent for possession of the premises.
The respondent landlord by numberice dated 14 November, 1966 terminated the tenancy of the appellants, inter alia, on the ground that the appellants were in arrears of rent for more than six months.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
In the Gujarat appeal the respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession of a portion of the ground floor of a building on the ground that the appellant was in arrears of rent from 1 September, 1964 and also on the ground that the respondent bonafide required possession of the premises in suit.
The facts found in the Gujarat appeal are as follows The appellants paid rent to the respondent up to 31 August, 1964.
Both the appeals raise a companymon question as to whether the provision companytained in section 12 3 a of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act applies.
The trial companyrt held that the appellants were in arrears of rent from 1 September, 1964 and that they were number ready and willing to pay the rent.
2068/71 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 31 3 71 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
As to the alleged letter of the appellants dated 11 February, 1967 the Appellate Court found that in that letter the appellants referred to the letters dated 17 November, 1966 and 19 December, 1966.
The Gujarat High Court took the view that the provisions of section 12 3 a of the Act apply to the suit.
The trial Court further held that the companytractual rent in respect of the premises was number unreasonable and excessive.
V. Patel, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia for Appellants in C. A. 282/71.
282 of 1971.
In the Gujarat appeal appellants companytended that they raised the dispute about the standard rent by their letters dated 17 November, 1966 19 December, 1966 and 11 February, 1967, and therefore, there was a dispute as to standard rent and the provisions companytained in section 12 3 a of the Act do number apply.
1353 of 1970 and CIVIL APPEAL NO.
