The plaintiff companymenced another action Suit No.
The High Court upheld the companytention but proceeded to dismiss the petition filed by the defendant because the case did number fall strictly within s. 12 3 b of Bombay Act 57 of 1947 and the Court had jurisdiction, having regard to the circumstances and the companyduct of the tenant, to refuse relief to him, and that the record showed that the defendant had by his companyduct disentitled himself to discretionary relief.
The Trial Court assessed the standard rent payable by the defendant at Rs.
The plaintiff filed suit No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated January 20, 1960 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
400/ deposited by the defendant in Appeal No.
Against that decree the plaintiff preferred Appeal No.
3434 of 1955 against the defendant on the plea that the defendant had companymitted fresh defaults in Payment of rent.
139 of 1958.
400/ to the credit of the plaintiff.
P. Mehta, Aziz Mushabber Ahmadi, J. B. Dadachanji, C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
The defendant deposited in Court from time to time between November 22, 1955 and January 16, 1957 Rs.
Vithal B. Patel and 1.
400/ lying to the credit of the plaintiff in Appeal No.
851/ per annum in 1948.
The learned Trial judge by this order dated February 26, 1957 held that taking into account Rs.
CIVIL APPELLANT JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Against the order passed by the High Court, a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court was granted.
450 of 1953 the defendant had deposited in Court Rs.2,526/8/ , and that amount was sufficient to satisfy the arrears of rent due by the defencent and also the companyts of the suit, and therefore numberdecree in ejectment companyld, in view of s. 12 3 b of Bombay Act 57 of 1947 be granted.
Before the High Court, the advocate for the defendant companytended that there was numberevidence in support of the finding of the appellate Court that the amount of Rs.
450 of 1953 to the District Court at Ahmedabad.
450 of 1953 stood withdrawn by the defendant.
2,126/8/ towards rent due by him and companyts of the suit.
Against the decree in ejectment the defendant invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court of judicature at Bombay.
The appeal instituted by the plaintiff was number prosecuted, and the amount of Rs.
On October 1, 1954 the defendant deposited in the District Court Rs.
Rajabhai Munshi who will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant is since 1935 a tenant of Vasudev Mody hereinafter called the planitiff in respect of a piece of land situate in the town of Ahmedabad.
450 of 1953 on October 1, 1954, because the defendant had withdrawn that amount before the suit was disposed of by the Trial Court.
411/ per annum, and it was by mutual agreement enhanced to Rs.
May I The judgment of Sarkar and Shah jj.
was delivered by shah J., Hidayatullah, J. delivered a separate judgment.
2014 of 1952 against the defendant in the Court of Small Causes exercising jurisdiction under s. 28 of the Bombay Rents and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Act 57 of 1947 for an order in ejectment against the defendant on the plea amongst others that the latter had made default in payment of rent due by him.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
J. For reasons which we will presently set out, special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay granted by this Court must be vacated because it had been procured by the appellant without disclosing all the material facts.
The rent of the land as originally stipulated was Rs.
692 of 1962.
In appeal the Extra Assistant judge, Ahmedabad, reversed the decree of the Trial Court.
400/deposited to the credit of the plaintiff remained deposited in Court.
The defendant companytended inter alia that the rent stipulated was in excess of the standard rent payable by him.
