The first appellant in his capacity of companyowner as also the heir of his wife together with her other heirs, served a numberice dated 2.5.67 calling upon the first respondent to pay arrears of rent for the period companymencing from 1.11,66 to 30.4.67 within a month.
1 and his wife terminated the tenancy of the first respondent and demanded arrears of rent under Section 20 2 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Firstly, on the date of the said numberice, the ren for six months had number become due for payment within the meaning of Section 12 2 of the Act, therefore, Section 12 3 a would number apply.
The learned trial Judge by his order dated 26.7.65 fixed standard rent at Rs.
The trial companyrt decided both suits and standard rent application by its order dated 29.9.73 and held that the standard rent of the premises was Rs.
The suit was decreed in favour of the appellant under Section 12 3 a and b of the Act.
Thirdly, on 8.6.67, the property was leased out in favour of the appellant and the pro for respondents had relinquished their share but in the said relinquishment deed, numberassignment much less a specific assignment of rent was made in favour of the appellant.
In the said suit, the legal representatives of the deceased Banoobai were made proforma defendants No.
The rent fixed by the Court had been duly deposited by the respondent, companyering all the arrears.
On appeal by the respondent, the same was allowed by the learned District Judge by his order dated 16.4.66.
258/67, the Small Causes Court had fixed the interim rent at the rate of Rs.
Thereafter he preferred two Special Civil Applications one against the decree for possession and the other against the standard rent application.
A numberice claims rent at the rate of Rs.
On the expiry of the period of numberice, the appellant and his wife filed a Suit No.
2267/64 for possession of the premises under Section 12 3 a of the Act.
On 8.6.67, they released all their rights title and interest in favour of appellant No.
258/67 had fixed the interim rate of rent at the rate of Rs.
Pending suit, an application for amendment was taken out raising the tone of nuisance against the first respondent.
On 3.10.66, the wife of the first appellant, Banoobai, died.
On 8.6.67, a lease deed came to be executed in favour of appellant by the proforma defendants.
In the light of the above, the question would be whether numberice is in companyformity with Section 12 3 a .
130/ per month and decreed the suit.
1 under a rent numbere on a monthly rent of Rs.
The first respondent fell into arrears of rent for the period companymencing from 1.8.63 to 31.3.64.
87/ as per order dated 24.4.67.
That was dismissed on 6.10.70.
Secondly, the rent claimed in the numberice was at the monthly rate of Rs.
The question is whether the numberice companyfirms to Section 12 3 a .
46 of 1967 was preferred in the High Court.
The rent claimed the numberice was Rs.
The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under The appellant is the owner of a bungalow situated at Mundhva Road, Ghorpadi, Poona.
By numberice dated 22.4.64, the appellant No.
In fact, the rent had been fixed as Rs.
He also raised the question of standard rent and claimed for fixation of standard rent.
The same had been deposited by the tenant and therefore there were numberarrears outstanding.
That necessitated the appellant to file the present suit for possession and for recovery of arrears of rent.
130/ whereas before the date of issuance of numberice Small Causes Court in Misc.
The suit came to be filed on 14.6.67.
Thereupon Special Civil Application No.
first appellant and his wife Banoobai since deceased leased out the said premises to respondent No.
As seen above, on 24.4.67 in Misc.
On 10,11.57, the.
800/ including Rs.
Application No.
Application No.
130/ per month.
87/ per month.
87/ on 22.4.67.
2 to 5.
The first respondent preferred an appeal which was dismissed.
The same having been deposited, there were numberarrears.
20/ as numberice charge .
The respondent tenant companytested the suit.
The first respondent did number pay the said arrears.
130/ .
130/ .
