D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the bombay Rent Act.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that the disputed accommodation consisting of ground floor and first floor was let out to the defendant No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 10. 00. He fell in arrears of rent with effect from 1-6-1978. Ten months rent fell due from him and as such notice of demand dated 3-4-1979 was sent which was served on 12-4-1979. Neither the notice was complied with nor the premises was vacated. Hence, the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit was filed. Eviction was also sought on the ground that the defendant No. 1 had illegally sub- let the ground floor portion to the defendant No. 2.

( 3 ) THE trial Court found that these two grounds for tenants eviction were made out. Accordingly the suit was decreed.

( 4 ) AN Appeal was preferred which was dismissed. Hence this revision.

( 5 ) THE first point for consideration is whether the Decree for eviction on ground of tenants falling in arrears of rent for more than six months is in accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that-on both these issues, viz. , default of the tenant and sub-letting there are concurrent findings of the two courts below. Hence, the revisional Court will be reluctant to interfere with such findings even if the revisional Court finds that another view can be taken from the evidence on record. Actually, it is not a case of re-assessment of evidence which is to be done by the revisional Court, The revisional Court on the other hand has to see whether the Decree of two Courts below is in accordance with law or not

( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the tenant was in arrears of rent for 10 months. The rent fell due from 1-6-1976. Notice of demand was issued on 3-4-1979 which was served on 12-4-1979. The tenant has admitted that he did not reply the notice. He, however, pleaded that he went to tender the rent to the plaintiff after service of notice, but the plaintiff refused to accept it. This plea of tenant was disbelieved by the two courts below. The finding of fact on this plea hardly requires any interference. The fact, therefore, remains that after receipt of notice the tenant neither paid the rent to the landlord nor tendered the same to the landlord. No tender was made by Money order as has been observed by the lower Appellate Court.

( 7 ) THE dispute regarding standard rent was also not raised at the earliest opportunity inasmuch as no reply notice was given. The summons of the suit was served on the tenant on 9-9-1979. He appeared on 10-9-1979. He applied for time to file written statement. On this day, he deposited, Rs. 100. 00 being 10 months rent but did not raise dispute regarding the standard rent. The dispute regarding standard rent was raised for the first time in the written statement. It was, therefore, not a case where the dispute regarding the standard rent was raised for the first time at the earliest opportunity. This dispute was not bona fide dispute regarding the standard rent.

( 8 ) THE question of nature of payment of rent also requires to be considered in order to appreciate the provision of Sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act. Education cess is payable by the tenant under the Gujarat Education Cess Act. Evidently, the rate of rent was Rs. 10. 00 p. m. The Government of Gujarat has amended the Gujarat education Cess Act and provided that the tenants paying rent below Rs. 25. 00 p. m. , are not required to pay education cess. Consequently, the tenant who was paying rs. 10/- p. m. , only as rent was not required to pay education cess. The rent was, therefore, payable monthly. These two ingredients of Sec. 12 (3) (a) are thus made out, but so far as the third ingredient is concerned unless it is established that valid notice of demand was served and the tenant failed to pay rent within a month of service of such valid notice no suit for eviction can be decreed under Sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act.

( 9 ) THE learned Coun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document