SHAKERLAL NATHUBHAI Vs. CHHOTUBHAI NAVALBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-1979-7-11
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 19,1979

SAKERLAL NATHUBHAI Appellant
VERSUS
CHHOTUBHAI NAVALBHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.K.MEHTA, D.C.GHEEWALA - (1.) Our learned brother Surti J has referred both these matters to us at the instance of defendant-tenants. Since there is no referring order nor any precise question has been formulated by the learned Single Judge referring the matters to us we have asked the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the respondents that we may formulate a precise question in these two matters and give our answer to that question and send both the matters back to the learned Single Judge for disposal on merits. The learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents in both these Revision Applications have fairly agreed to the course which we have suggested and therefore having regard to the contentions urged before the first Appellate Court we formulate the following question arising in these references for our opinion:- "Whether the suit notice is bad in law inasmuch as the plaintiff-landlord has called upon the defendant-tenant to pay the amount of rent alleged to be in arrears within a period shorter than the period prescribed by sec. 12(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 after the expiry of which the suit can be filed "?
(2.) In Civil Revision Application No. 2 of 1977 the learned trial Judge had granted the decree for possession as prayed for. The appeal of the tenant was however allowed by the learned District Judge inter alia on the ground that the suit notice was bad in law since it called upon the defendant-tenant to pay the amount of rent alleged to be in arrears within a period of four days. This order of the first Appellate Court has been challenged on various grounds in this Revision Application.
(3.) SimiLarly in Civil Revision Application No. 618 of 1977 the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the landlord for possession. The matter was taken in appeal before the District Court at Nadiad and the learned Assistant Judge who heard the matter allowed the appeal and held that the suit notice was legal and valid. It should be noted that the plaintiff-landlord in the suit out of which Civil Revision Application No. 618 of 1977 arises called upon the defendant-tenant to pay the amount of rent alleged to be in arrears within a period of seven days. This order of the Appellate Court of Nadiad has been challenged in this revision application on various grounds.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.