SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Guj) 914

D.C.SRIVASTAVA
MOCHI BHIKHU RAMJI – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL AZIZ TARMOHYMAD BY HIS HEIRS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: GAURANG H.BHATT, M.S.SHAH

D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act (for short, the Act), against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the deceased landlord Abdul Aziz filed a suit for eviction of the revisionist on the grounds that he was tenant of the demised premises on monthly rent of Rs. 35=00 and he was in arrears of rent for eight months from 1-2-1975 to 3-9-1975, which he failed to pay within a month of service of notice of demand.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the tenant, raising dispute of standard rent and also pleading payment of rent and alleging that he was not in arrears of rent exceeding six months and that he was ready and willing to pay the rent.

( 4 ) THE trial Court found that the standard rent was the agreed rent of Rs. 35=00 per month. It was further found by the trial Court that the tenant was in arrears of rent exceeding six months. The plea of payment of rent or the tender of rent was disbelieved by the trial Court. The trial Court also found that the tenant was not entitled to protection of sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act. With these findings, the suit wa
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top