JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner landlord has impugned the decision of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, under which, the judgment and decree passed by the Judge of the Small Causes Court in favour of the plaintiff landlord directing the defendant tenant to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, came to be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff landlord was required to file suit against the defendants seeking a decree for eviction against his tenants on the grounds that the tenants failed to pay monthly rent from 1-9-1960 till the giving of the demand notice dated 4-12-1970. The demand notice was issued under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Rent Act, 1947). The landlord was required to join the original tenant Smt. Rampyari Suchitram Gupta as defendant No. 1 and her son Mevalal Gupta as party defendant No. 2. It appears that during the pendency of the suit the original tenant Smt. Rampyari Gupta expired and therefore her legal heirs were brought on record.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff landlord claiming thereby the possession of the suit premises on the ground that the tenant having failed to pay the rent within a period of one month from the service of notice of demand, she was liable to be evicted.

4. The defendant raised various pleas in their defence to the extent of disputing the title of the plaintiff landlord to the suit premises. The defendants also specifically denied the receipt of the alleged notice of demand dated 4-12-1970, and therefore, according to the defendants there was no valid notice of demand and/or quit. The defendants tenants also disputed the quantum of rent which was claimed to be Rs. 80 per month and submitted that the standard rent would not exceed Rs. 20 per month, and accordingly, requested the Court to fix the standard rent at the said rate.

5. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has proved, that the defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the suit premises, and that the tenancy was duly terminated by a notice to quit dated 4-12-1970. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant No. 1 was in arrears of rent from 1-9-1960 at the rate of Rs. 80 per month, and defendant No. 1 also failed to pay the suit amount of arrears of rent within a period of one month from the receipt of notice to quit. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff landlord.

6. The matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by the tenants. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and found that the service of notice of demand on the defendants was proper, but found that the defendants were entitled to get the benefit of Amended Rent Act, which plea was raised in appeal by their application dated 3rd December, 1987. Ultimately the Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff so far as the eviction of the suit premises was concerned. Aggrieved by this decision of the Appellate Court, the petitioner landlord has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Mr. Rege, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner landlord has submitted that the Appellate Court has proceeded on a wrong premise by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession, by relying upon the Amending Act (Maharashtra Act) 18 of 1987 under which, sub-section 3(a) and (b) of section 12 came to be substituted by sub-section 3, and by holding thereby that the said amendment is retrospective in operation and it was held in reference to section 25 of the amended Act. Mr. Rege, learned Counsel for petitioner landlord submitted that the issue is no more res integra, as this Court in the case of (Piroja M. Mehta v. Dr. Hambai Jamshedji Cama and others)1, 1988(3) Bom.C.R. 1, has clearly held that the provision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document