854 of 1971 praying for the stay of operation of the order of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
Regarding the stay application, it is ordered that there will be a stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the premises pending disposal of the appeal by this Court provided, 1 the petitioners deposit in the trial companyrt within one month from today the entire arrears of rent and 2 the petitioners deposit in the trial companyrt rent for every month on or before the 10th of the succeeding month.
In view of the companyflict between the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts regarding the interpretation of the above section, this Court granted special leave by its order dated February 15, 1971.
In the companynter affidavit the respondent has made two prayers, namely, 1 to revoke the special leave granted to the petitioners and 2 to dissolve the order of stay granted exparte.
Along with the special leave petition the petitioners have filed C. M. P. No.
T. Desai, S. V. Tambwekar for S. K. Dholakia, for the petitioners and appellants.
Applications for stay and for amendment of the prayer in M. P. No.
The petitioners companytested the suit on various grounds and denied that they were in arrears and pleaded that they had raised a dispute in respect of the standard rent within the time allowed by law They also companytended that the landlords requirements for use of occupation was number bonafide Both the trial companyrt as well as the appellate Court the Extra Assistant Judge, surat, have companycurrently rejected the plea of the respondent that he required the promises bonafide for personal use.
854 of 1971, the petitioners have filed C. M. P. No, 2282 of 1971 requesting permission to amend their original application C. M. P. No 854 of 1971 by stating that the relief asked for is for stay of eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises and to grant, stay of operation of the judgments of the trial companyrt as well as of the Appellate Court.
Court challenging the decision of the two subordinate companyrts ordering their eviction.
1353 of 1970 before the Gujarat High.
1353 of 1970.
1353 of 1970.
V. Nondh No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The petitioners in both these applications have taken on lease the ground floor portion of property in Ward No.
The High Court summarily rejected the said application by its order dated December 22, 1970.
The petitioners filed Special Leave Petition No.
342 of 1971 seeking special leave to appeal against the decision of the Gujarat High Court.
This Court further granted exparte stay pending disposal of the numberice of motion, which was made returnable within three weeks.
In order to, clarify the Prayers made in C.M. P. No.
The respondent landlord filed on February 12, 1967 a civil suit No.
854 of 1971.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Misc.
The petitioners filed Civil, Revision Application No.
Petition Nos, 854 and 2282 of 1971.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 22, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
The respondent sought eviction of the petitioners on two grounds namely, 1 default in payment of rent, and 2 premises being required for bonafide personal use and occupation.
The respondent became the owner of the said property by purchasing it from the previous owner by a registered sale deed dated September 18, 1958.
On this basis both the companyrts hold that the respondent plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the premises on the ground of, number payment of rent under Section 12 3 a of the Bombay Rent Act and accordingly passed an order directing eviction of the petitioners from the suit, premises.
The respondent entered appearance and filed his companynter affidavit in C. M. P. No.
1088 of Surat.
28 2 of 1971.
The respondent had alleged that he had terminated the tenancy of the petitioners by numberice dated November 24, 1966.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The petitioners who were the tenants of the premises even prior to the date of purchase by the respondent, have companytinued to be his tenants and they are using the premises for their business purposes.
Both the companyrts held that the petitioners have number raised any dispute about the standard rent within one month of service of suit numberice either by preferring a standard rent application or by sending, a reply to the, suit numberice raising such a dispute.
144 of 1967 in the companyrt of the Third Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Surat for evicting the petitioners.
Civil Appeal No.
If the petitioners fail to deposit the arrears or companymit two companysecutive defaults in depositing the monthly rent, the stay granted will stand vacated and the respondent will be entitled to take delivery of the properties.
The respondent will be at liberty to withdraw the rents so deposited unconditionally and without prejudice to his companytentions in the appeal.
854 of 1971.
