V.B.RAJU
LABHABHAI VITHALDAS – Appellant
Versus
LAXMIDAS VITHALDAS – Respondent
( 1 ) THE first point urged in this revision application is that when a notice under sec. 12 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act is given for the payment of arrears of rent not at the rate of contractual rent but at a rate higher than standard rent the notice itself becomes invalid and in such a case no suit can be filed as provided in sec. 12 (2) of the Act. In order to decide this question it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act Sec. 7 of the Act reads as follows:-EXCEPT when the rent is liable to periodical increment by virtue of an agreement entered into before the first day of September 1940 it shall not be lawful to claim or receive on account of rent for any premises any increase above the standard rent unless the landlord was before the coming into operation of this Act entitled to recover such increase under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act 1939 or the Bombay Rents. Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act. 1944 or is entitled to recover such increase under the provisions of this Act.
( 2 ) SECTION 5 (10) of the Act defines stan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.