D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

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

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that the revisionist was tenant of the respondent in the disputed premises on monthly rent of Rs. 5. 00. The property was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent. He filed Suit No. 554 of 1963 against the revisionist for his eviction which was dismissed. Appeal was also dismissed. Legality of transfer in favour of the respondent was challenged. Therefore, a Deed of Relinquishment was obtained whereafter another Suit No. 1151 of 1967 was filed for declaration that the plaintiff- respondent is owner of the property and the defendant was a tenant. The said suit was decreed. Thereafter, the defendant-revisionist fell in arrears of rent from 3-12-1962. Notice of demand was served, but the rent was not paid nor the premises was vacated. Eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant remained in arrears of rent for more than six months which he failed to pay within a month of service of notice of demand. Eviction was also sought on the ground that the premises was reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord-respondent for his personal use, eviction was also sought on the ground that the revisionist had acquired suitable residence for his use.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata because of dismissal of earlier Suit No. 554 of 1963. It was denied that the premises was reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord. It was also denied that the revisionist acquired suitable alternative accommodation for his residence. Dispute of standard rent was raised by the revisionist in his reply to the notice of demand.

( 4 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit whereafter an Appeal was preferred by the landlord-respondent. The Appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and granted decree for eviction on the ground that the tenant did not make compliance of Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act, hence he was liable to be evicted. It is, therefore, this revision by the tenant.

( 5 ) THE finding of the trial Court regarding bona fide requirement of the landlord and acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenant was confirmed by the lower appellate Court and these two findings were not challenged in this revision,

( 6 ) THE only ground of challenge is that the lower appellate Court was in error in granting decree for possession on the ground that the tenant did not make strict compliance of Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act.

( 7 ) FROM the judgment of the lower appellate Court and also from the arguments advanced by Shri N. K. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the respondent it is clear that the respondent-landlord wanted decree for eviction under Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the bombay Rent Act. It is further to be seen whether the suit was filed claiming decree for eviction under Sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act or under Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act. For this, plaint was examined. From Para 3 of the plaint it is clear that the decree for eviction was not sought nor it could be sought under Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act. Shri majmudar contended that it was not mentioned in Para 3 that eviction was sought under Sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act and only facts were pleaded on the basis of which eviction could be sought under Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act.

( 8 ) PERUSAL of Para 3 of the plaint shows that there was clear averments that more than six months rent was due from the tenant. The rate of rent, according to the landlord, was Rs. 5. 00 p. m. It fell due from 3-12-1962. There was thus clear averment that more than six months rent was due. Notice of demand Ex. 47 dated 9-3-1972 was issued which was served on 16-3-1972. In this notice rent was demanded, tenancy was determined and delivery of possession was also demanded, the notice of the landlord was replied by the tenant in which he raised dispute of standard rent. In the written statement also he raised dispute of standard rent. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document