- (1.) This appeal, by special leave, by the tenant of a residential building, is directed against the order of the Bombay High Court dated January 9/10, 1967 in Civil Revision Application No. 888 of 1965.
(2.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in holding that the respondent landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the appellant on the ground that the latter had failed to pay the standard rent including the permitted increases for over a period of six months. Incidentally the question also arises whether the notice issued by the respondent on June 15, 1955 is a valid one under Section 12 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act 57 of 1947), (hereinafter to be referred as the Rent Act). The facts in so far as they are material are as follows: A building known as Lal Bungalow situate in Kurla Road, Andheri, originally belonged to the respondent and one Ratanbai. The appellant had taken on rent two rooms in the ground-floor in the said building in or about 1940, agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs. 25.50. In 1943 the entire ground-floor including the two rooms, already occupied by the appellant were taken on a fresh lease by him on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. As disputes arose between, the owners of the building, resulting in the institution of a suit' a Receiver was appointed to take possession of the suit premises. The Receiver went on collecting rent from the appellant at Rs. 45/- per month till March 1954 and subsequently at Rs. 48/2/9. In or about November, 1964 the co-owners settled their disputes and the suit house was allotted to the share of the respondent. The respondent sent a notice through her lawyer on December 21 1954 to the appellant demanding a sum of Rs. 240/7/6, being the increments in the Municipal Tax in respect of the building from March 1, 1950 to November 30, 1954 at -/1|6 per rupee per month.. It was mentioned by the respondent that the said increments were made by the Parle Andheri Municipality in the years 1945 to 1947. Certain further claims were also made in respect of water charges. but we are now not concerned with that claim in these proceedings. By the said notice the respondent landlord also called upon the appellant to vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the premises by the end of January, 1955. The appellant replied through his lawyer on January 27, 1955. He called upon the respondent to prove her title to the property in respect of which the claim was being made. He pleaded that he had paid to the Receiver all his dues till November, 1954, as also all legitimate increments payable by him He declined to comply with the request for surrender of possession of the premises on the ground that the said demand was illegal. The respondent by letter of March 24, 1955 sent through her counsel, again reiterated her demand for payment of the increments in the municipal tax. She also gave notice to the appellant terminating his tenancy and called upon him to deliver peaceful vacant possession by the end of April, 1955. There was some further correspondence between the parties and ultimately on June 15, 1955 the respondent sent a lawyer's notice calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 31519/- within the period mentioned therein. The appellant was informed that the said amount represented: (a) Rs. 262/15/6 'being the arrears of rent, including the amount of the increment in Municipal taxes due by you for five months from 1st December, 1954 to 30th April, 1955 at Rs. 52 9.6 per month', and (b) Rs. 52/9/6 as compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises for the month of May, 1955.
(3.) It will be noted that in this notice the respondent claimed arrears of rent including the amount of increment in municipal taxes and that the total amount per month was at Rs. 52/9/6. Claim by way of arrears of rent including the increments in municipal taxes was for a period of five months from December 1, 1954 to April 30, 1955 and compensation was further claimed for one month The appellant again sent a reply through his counsel on July 1, 1955. In this reply he had stated that the claim contained in the notice dated June 15, 1955 was very much in excess of what was actually due by him. It was further stated that the monthly rent of the premises was only Rs. 45/- and that the municipal tax recoverable was also only Rs. 2/13/- per month.. He, however, admitted that from April 1, l954 there was an addition to the rent according to law, but he stated that he has paid rent at Rs. 48/2/9 including all taxes from April 1, 1954. Admitting that he was in arrears of rent with all charges from December 1, 1954, he stated that he was prepared to remit the dues till June, 1955 though the demand was only for the period ending May, 1955. It was further stated that a cheque for Rs. 337/3/3 representing the arrears at Rs. 48/2/9 for seven months from December 1, 1954 to June 30, 1955 was also being enclosed along with the reply. It is seen from the further letter sent by the respondent on July 12 1955 that the cheque, received along with the reply, was dishonoured. In consequence the appellant was again called upon to remit the amount as per the notice of June 15, 1955 together with an additional sum of Rs. 52/9/6 as compensation for the month of June, 1955. The appellant again replied on July 21, 1955 requesting the respondent to return the cheque and promising to send the amount in cash. The appellant has further stated in his reply that the amount claimed as due till the end of June, 1955 was excessive and illegal.;