Judgement

SHAH, J. : Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai hereinafter called the plaintiff is the owner of certain premises in the town of Baroda, and Vora Abbasbhai hereinafter called the defendant occupies the premises as plaintiff s tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 70/-. By notice dated December 1, 1956 which was served on December 3, 1956, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to deliver possession of the premises alleging that the latter had failed to pay rent since October 1, 1955. The defendant by his letter dated December 7, 1956 contemplated that he had paid rent at the agreed rate till April 1, 1956 and that he was entitled to get credit for Rs. 200/- being the costs incurred by him for "electric-installation" in the premises made with the plaintiff s consent and the rent stipulated was excessive.

2. On January 5, 1957 the defendant moved the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baroda under S. 11 (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, called for the sake of brevity the Act , for an order fixing the standard rent of the premises occupied by him and also for an order under S. 11(3) specifying interim rent. By letter dated January 7, 1957 the defendant informed the plaintiff about the application moved by him and requested the plaintiff to appear in the proceeding , and expressed his willingness to pay such amount as the Court ordered him to pay. On January 8, 1956 the defendant deposited in Court Rs.500/- to the credit of the plaintiff. On January 27, 1957 the plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baroda, for a decree in ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. On February 14, 1957 the defendant applied to the Court for an order specifying the rate at which interim rent may be deposited in Court as long as the standard rent of the suit property was not fixed, and submitted that the dispute between the parties related to fixation and payment of standard rent, and that without prejudice to his contentions he was ready to deposit the amount ordered by the Court. The Civil Judge on the same day ordered : " The defendant to deposit the arrears at the rate of Rs. 51/- per month within 15 days from to-day." Pursuant to his order the defendant deposited Rs. 200/- on March 2, 1956 to the credit of his plaintiff and deposited diverse other sums from time to time which by February 11, 1958, aggregated taking into account the amount of Rs. 500/- deposited on January 8, 1956 to Rs. 1,479/-. No further steps it appears were taken in the application moved by the defendant under S. 11 for fixation of standard rent but the proceeding was amalgamated with the suit as the enquiry about the appropriate standard rent had also to be made in the suit.

3. On March 28, 1958, the Civil Judge, dismissed the plaintiff s claim for a decree in ejectment. In the view of the Court the standard rent of the premises was Rs. 50/- per month, that the defendant had paid the stipulated rent up to April 1, 1956 and that he was entitled to credit for Rs. 150/- expended by him with the consent of the plaintiff for "electric-installation" in the premises occupied by him. Taking into account the aggregate amount deposited, the Court held that the defendant was not liable to be evicted for non-payment of standard rent and that in any event it was established that the defendant was ready and willing to pay the amount of standard rent and permitted increases within the meaning of S. 12(1) of the Act.

4. In appeal the District Court held that the "proper standard rent" of the premises was Rs. 70/- per month, that rent had not been paid by the defendant since October 1, 1955 and that the defendant was not entitled to get credit for Rs. 150/- spent by him for "electric-installation". But the learned Judge held that by depositing, pursuant to the order of the Court of First Instance, interim rent as ordered, the defendant has complied with the requirements of S. 12(3)(b), and that he had otherwis