JUDGMENT - GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. :

The short question of law which arises for our decision in the present civil revision application is whether the word "may" used in S. 12 sub-sec. (3) (a), of Bombay Act No. 57 of 1947* means "shall", or whether it is used in its usual enabling sense and it gives discretion to the Court either to pass a decree for eviction or not. This question arises in this way. The petitioner is the tenant of the premises in suit. Notice was given by the opponents to the petitioner on 3-5-1954 calling upon him to vacate the premises on two grounds. It was alleged that the petitioner was in arrears as to rent and that the opponents wanted the premises bona fide for their own personal use. The petitioner denied the opponents case that the opponents needed the premises bona fide for their personal use; it was urged on his behalf that he was ready and willing to pay the rent. The petitioner also disputed the validity of the notice given by the opponents. The learned trial Judge found that the notice given by the opponents was valid. He also held that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the standard rent. The plea made by the opponents that they needed the premi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document