Failure to respond to a statutory notice for rent arrears exceeding six months, combined with evidence of a rent note, establishes a ground for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act, regardless of unsupported claims regarding deposits with previous owners.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Revision under section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short ‘Rent Act’) questions legality and proprietary of the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amreli dated 29.04.2006 whereby, learned Additional District Judge reversed the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.31 of 1998 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Savarkundla dated 30.10.2004 and passed order to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises within three months from the date of order and ordered to pay Rs.8400/- towards arrears of rent and Rs.250/- towards notice charge, in all Rs.8650/- to the original plaintiff. Learned Additional District Judge also passed order to pay mesne profit ar the rate of Rs.200/- per month.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the learned Trial Court.

3. At the outset, I may refer to order dated 24.12.2007 passed by Co-ordinate Bench while staying the impugned judgment and decree :-

“The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that this Court vide order dated 8th December, 2006 has stayed the order dated 29th April, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amreli, so far as possession of the property is concerned in the hands of the original applicant. Thus, rest of the order, so far as payment of Rs.8400/-+ Rs. 250/- is equal to total Rs. 8650/-, there is no stay. Likewise, the present applicant has also to pay Rs. 200/- per month as mesne profit. The total of the aforesaid amount comes to Rs. 48700/-. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the aforesaid amount will be deposited on or before 26th December, 2007 before this Court and therefore, stay granted earlier by this Court may be extended.

2. The aforesaid request is opposed by the learned advocate for the opponent and submitted that despite the order dated 29th April, 2006 passed by the lower appellate court, no amount has been deposited and no stay has been granted by this Court so far as payment of mesne profit is concerned.

3. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this Court has not granted any stay so far as deposition of the aforesaid amount is concerned, as per the order dated 29th April, 2006 passed by the lower appellate court. With a view to give one more chance to the present applicant, the applicant is hereby permitted to deposit the amount of Rs. 48700/- before this Court on or before 26th December, 2007 failing which the stay granted by this court shall stand automatically vacated. S.O. to 27th December, 2007.”

4. Learned advocate Ms.Trivedi for the revisionist – tenant would submit that in the year 2012, some amount was deposited, however, she could not point out whether order passed by this Court has been complied or not in it’s true spirit.

5. As against aforesaid, learned advocate Mr.H.P.Shah for learned advocate Mr.Desai for landlord submits that in the year 2012, the revisionist – tenant has deposited Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1000/-. This amount has been withdrawn by the landlord.

6. In the aforesaid background, if we go through facts of the case, plaintiff – Ghelabhai purchased Stone Crusher from erstwhile owner – Anthubhai being demise premises near Gayatri Temple, Savarkundla. After purchase of the said property, the plaintiff terminated the