D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act (for short "the Act") against the concurrent Judgments and Decrees of the trial Court and the appellate Court directing dispossession of the revisionist from the disputed accommodation and also granting decree for arrears of rent, etc.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision are shortly, as under : the disputed accommodation was let out to the revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. The Rent from 1-11-1970 was not paid by the revisionist. Thus, upto 30-4-1976 more than six months rent remained due from the revisionist. Notice of demand was sent on 10-5-1976 which was served on the revisionist, but he failed to pay the rent. Allegation of nuisance was also made against the revisionist that he used to quarrel with his neighbours. Thus, on grounds of arrears of rent, nuisance and annoyance suit for eviction was filed against the revisionist.

( 3 ) THE revisionist appeared in the trial Court and after seeking ten adjournmnts filed Written Statement on 12-2-1980. He denied the allegation of nuisance and causing annoyance to the neighbours. He also denied that any amount was due from him. He disputed the correctness and reasonableness of the monthly rent and thus raised dispute of standard rent which, according to him, could not exceed Rs. 5/- p. m. Pleading his readiness and willingness to pay the rent he pleaded that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE trial Court framed issues before the written statement was filed by the revisionist and added one more issue regarding standard rent after the written statement was filed. In the" trial Court, the revisionist failed to adduce any evidence in support of his defence. The trial Court in the judgment deleted issue No. 4 by giving some findings regarding standard rent and ultimately found that the revisionist was liable to be evicted under Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, an Appeal was preferred by the tenant-revisionist which was also dismissed hence this revisionist.

( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examining the two judgments of the trial Court and the lower Appellat Court the points which have been raised by Shri D. D. Vyas, learned Counsel for the revisionist can be considered and decided.

( 6 ) THE first contention of Shri Vyas has been that the revisionist was not given adequate opportunity of hearing and producding evidence in his defence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is admitted fact that the defendant did not adduce any evidence in support of his case. The conduct of the defendant- revisionist was fully appreciated by the two Courts below. The trial Court observed in Para 8 of its judgment and the suit was filed on 23-6-1976, but no written statement was filed by the defendant after service of summons. He appeared at a late stage and after seeking adjournment for ten times filed his written statement on 4-2-1980. Thus, after seeking ten adjournments the revisionist filed his written statement. The trial Court further found from the record that the defendant-revisionist intentionally wanted to misuse the provisions of the Act and delay the disposal of the Suit. According to the trial Court issues were framed on 8-5-1978. The lower Appellate Court observed that the plaintiffs evidence was closed on 22-3-1984, and thereafter, number of adjournments were sought by the defendant-revisionist on one ground or the other including his sickness and disturbance in Punjab where the revisionist had gone for some work. The dates of adjournments are mentioned in the judgment of the lower appellate Court as 11-4-1983, 23-6-1983, 25-7-1983, 9-8-1983. Thereafter application for adjournment Ex. 75 on ground of sickness of the defendant was rejected through detailed order, but on the same day another application for time to file revision was moved before the trial Court which was rejected. Attempt was also made to get the defenda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document