The revisional court can only intervene if a lower court's appreciation of evidence is grossly erroneous or leads to a legal perversity.

JUDGEMENT

1.This is a revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 at the instance of the original plaintiff landlord who had sued the respondent-defendant tenant for a decree of eviction of the rented premises under section 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act.

2.The petitioner-landlord had sued the respondent-tenant for a decree of eviction on two grounds viz. (1) that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months on the date of the suit notice, and that the tenant had not paid up the amount within 30 days of receipt of the suit notice and (2) that the tenant had made a permanent construction on the rented premises without the prior written consent of the landlord.

3.The trial court, after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, framed appropriate issues, and after recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, rejected the landlord's claim for eviction on the ground that the tenant had made a permanent construction on the rented premises. However, the trial court found that the tenant was in arrears of rent of more than six months on the date of the suit notice, and had not paid up the said amount within 30 days of receipt of the said notice, that the case was covered by section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act and therefore passed a decree for eviction. The trial court also passed a money decree in respect of the arrears of rent due to the landlord.

4.The respondent tenant being aggrieved by the decree of eviction passed against him by the trial court, preferred an appeal under section 29(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The lower appellate court, after appreciating the evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, reversed the decree of eviction passed by the trial court.

5.It is this decree passed by the lower appellate court dismissing the suit of the landlord, which is the subject matter of the present revision.

6.This Court is conscious of the limited jurisdiction of the court while dealing with a revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is well settled law that this court in a revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act cannot reappreciate the evidence, cannot sit in appeal over the impugned judgement and may not enter into a reappreciation of the evidence, even if a second view on the same set of facts is possible. However, it is equally well established that the revisional court can certainly interfere where the appreciation of evidence on the part of the lower court is grossly erroneous, and is such which would amount to a perversity in law, and if permitted to remain would amount to a travesty of justice.

7.On the facts of the case and in view of the law applicable to such facts, it is found that this is precisely the situation in the present case. It is therefore necessary to interfere for the reasons stated hereinafter.

8.The landlord-plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent on the basis of a statutory notice issued under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The said notice is at Exh.25 dated 30th November 1978. The suit notice claims that the tenant was in arrears of rent of more than six months and such arrears amount to Rs.1404/-. These are the specific facts asserted in the suit notice, which must be kept in the forefront while examining other relevant facts and the appropriate law applicable to the established facts.

9.It is also pertinent to note that the suit notice makes