Judgment

R. C. LAHOTI, J.

( 1 ) THE suit premises are part of the prop erty known as Eaglewadi, situated at New mill Road, Kurla, Mumbai. It is a chawl consisting of several rooms which are single- storeyed and numbered. Ramji Purshottam and Jagjivan Ram Purshottam, the two appellants before us, both of whom have expired during the pendency of the proceedings and are represented by their heirs, are brothers and in occupation of two rooms - Room No. 12 and Room No. 13 respectively - in the chawl. For the sake of convenience, we refer the two tenants before us as tenants and the respondents as landlords who are undisputedly the owner-landlords of the chawl. The facts are common and lie in a narrow compass to the extent they are relevant for the purpose of highlighting the issues surviving for decision in these appeals.

( 2 ) THE monthly rent of the tenants-appellants is Rs. 6. 37 paise each. They were in arrears of rent in respect of their respective premises for the period 1. 6. 1969 to 31. 1. 1970. They were served with de- mand-cum-quit notices dated 20th February, 1970. The mode of service was personal on the tenants as also by sending copies thereof under certificate of posting. In spite of the service of notice they did not pay or tender the rent in arrears. The service of notices in person had taken place on 20. 2. 1970 itself. Notices under certificate of posting were sent on 6. 3. 1970 and were delivered. As the two tenants failed to respond to the notices, proceedings for eviction were initiated against the appellants under section 12 of the Bombay Rents hotel and Lodging House Control Act, 1947, hereinafter the Act, for short. The tenants did not also pay or tender the rent in the court on the first day of hearing of the suit as required by section 12 (3) (b) of the Act. In the written statement filed by the tenants they disputed the receipt of any notice and also raised a dispute about water charges payable in respect of the premises.

( 3 ) ON trial, the learned judge of the Court of Small Causes vide the judgment dated 31. 8. 1983 directed the tenants to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord-respondents after two months from the date of the decree. The material findings of fact arrived at by the trial court are :

(I) that the tenants were duly served with the demand-cum-quit notice; (ii) that the tenants were in arrears of the rent for more than six months and they neither paid the rent nor raised a dispute as to the standard rent within the statutory period of one month from the receipt of the notice by them; and (iii) that they were liable to be evicted from the suit premises under section 12 (3) (a) of the Act. These findings have been upheld in appeal and also by the High court where the judgments of the courts below were sought to be impugned in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The first two findings are pure of facts and they have achieved a finality. It may be stated that before this Court also in these appeals the learned counsel for the appellants has in all fairness not laid challenge to the said findings of fact. The only issue arising for decision is as to the liability of the appellants to be evicted from the suit premises, in the light of the law as amended during the pendency of the proceedings as will be noticed shortly hereinafter.

( 4 ) THE two appellants were also alleged to have committed acts of waste and carried out permanent additions and alterations in the suit premises and, their eviction was claimed on those grounds also. The trial court has rendered a finding ofnot proved on this issue and the landlord-respondents have not pursued that plea further.

( 5 ) NOW, the facts relevant to the controversy which has emerged for decision before this Court.

( 6 ) SECTION 12 of the Act under which the proceedings for eviction were initiated in the year 1970 and as it stood at that time reads as under- "12.

(1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of p