D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is landlords revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act (for short "the Act") challenging the non-concurrent judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. The respondent - tenant has been served, but neither he is present nor any counsel has been engaged by him. As such Shri Mehul S. Shah for the revisionist has been heard and the Judgments of the two courts below and the relevant materials on record were examined.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision are as under : the demised property consisting of one room on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor were let out by the revisionist to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 45. 00. In the plaint it was stated that this was also the standard rent, but in the notice of demand it was not mentioned that this was the standard rent, rather it was stated in the notice that it was contractual rate of rent. In addition to this, under the Agreement the respondent was to pay Rs. 3. 00 per month towards electricity charges. Rent and electricity charges upto 9. 1. 1974 were paid by the respondent and since 10. 1. 1974 Rs. 960. 00 became due towards rent and electricity charges. Notice of demand was sent on 22. 9. 1975, which was served on the tenant. The tenant respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent within one month of service of notice of demand and also failed to raise dispute of standard rent in the reply notice sent within a month of service of notice of demand. Consequently the Suit for eviction of the respondent and for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit, electricity charges and expenses for serving notice, etc. was filed.

( 3 ) THE tenants plea in the written statement was that the agreed rent was Rs. 13. 00 p. m. He did not raise dispute regarding electricity charges at Rs. 3. 00 p. m. The extent of accommodation let out to him was also not disputed by him. It was, however, pleaded that the rent from 10. 1. 1975 was sent by Money Order which was refused by the landlord. In this view of the matter it was pleaded that the tenant did not commit default in payment of rent and that the landlord was not issuing receipts for payment of rent. In the written statement, for the first time, dispute of standard rent was raised and according to the respondent even Rs. 13. 00 p. m. was excessive rent and the standard rent was less than this amount.

( 4 ) THE trial court, after considering the evidence on record, determined the standard rent at Rs. 45. 00 p. m. It observed that the tenant did not dispute the standard rent within a month of service of notice of demand and as such the case was covered by Section 12 (3) (a) of the Act. The trial Court further found that no amount was tendered or paid to the landlord within a month of service of notice of demand. With these findings the Suit for eviction of the respondent defendant and for recovery of rent, mesne profit, electricity charges, was decreed. Feeling aggrieved the tenant preferred Appeal. The Lower Appellate Court, however, concluded that since there was dispute of standard rent, the case was not covered by Section 12 (3) (a) of the Rent Act. The Appellate Court did not agree with the findings of the trial Court that the standard rent could be Rs. 45. 00 p. m. On the other hand it found that Rs. 13. 00 p. m. could be reasonable standard rent. With these findings the decree for eviction was set aside by the lower Appellate Court and the decree for arrears of rent and mesene profit was accordingly modified. It is, therefore, this revision by the landlord.

( 5 ) AS indicated above since none has appeared from the side of the tenant - respondent the learned Counsel for the revisionist was heard and the material on record was examined.

( 6 ) THE first point for consideration in this revision is whether non-concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court regarding standard rent can be interfered in this revision. Normally the finding on standa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document