The court held that the presence of monthly rent obligations under the Bombay Rent Act justified eviction against tenants failing to pay within specified timelines.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. The captioned civil revision application, has been filed praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2010 by the learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Dahod in civil appeal no. 34 of 2006. Applicants also pray for quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2006 passed by the learned civil Judge, Dahod in Regular Civil Suit no. 124 of 1998 whereby, the suit filed by the respondent-original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the original plaintiff”) came to be allowed and the tenant-Rameshchandra Mohanlal Goswami i.e. husband of the applicant no. 1 and father of the applicant no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the tenant”) was directed to hand over the possession of the shop admeasuring 5 x 8, situated on plot no. 33 (hereinafter referred to as “the shop in question”).

2. The facts, culled out from the captioned proceeding, are thus:

2.1 The shop in question, was let to the tenant on the monthly rent of Rs.250/- The respondent landlord i.e. original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit no. 124 of 1998 praying for eviction on the ground that the tenant is in arrears as per the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). As aforestated, the suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 29.04.2006 and the tenant was directed to hand over the possession. Being aggrieved, the tenant filed a civil appeal no. 34 of 2006 which came to be dismissed and hence, the captioned revision application.

3. Mr. K.V. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the applicants, submitted that the court of first instance, has passed the decree on the premise that the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 would apply and therefore, in the captioned proceeding, the issue is whether provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 or clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act of 1947 would apply?

3.1 While inviting attention to the notice dated 18.02.1998, it is submitted that the original plaintiff has clearly stated that in addition to the rent, responsibility of the tenant was to pay the taxes. Therefore, it was the case of the original plaintiff that the municipal taxes and the education cess were the liabilities of the tenant and since are paid annually, it cannot be said that the rent is payable by month and if it is not payable by month, the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 would not apply. The case would fall in the category of “any other cases” and therefore, what would be attracted, would be the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 12. It is submitted that the proceeding, is based on the notice and the stand in the notice, is to be considered.

3.2 It is next submitted that in the second notice, it has been categorically stated that the rent which was paid by the tenant has been noted in the diary. It is submitted that there was a specific reference of the diary maintained and everything was noted in it which could not be produced before the trial court. Accordingly, the tenant filed an application seeking production of additional evidence which, came to be rejected on 19.04.2010 which order, was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Special Civil Application no. 8090 of 2010. The writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2010; however, liberty was reserved to the tenant to raise the contention before the revisional court.

3.3 It is submitted that it is admitted that