P.D.DESAI, M.U.SHAH - (1.) An interesting and important question as to the interpretation of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 11 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as relating to its constitutional validity arises in this civil revision application. Similar questions were also raised in four other civil revision applications. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing in those applications as well when this matter was called on for hearing. This judgment will therefore dispose of common questions of law involved in all the five matters.
(2.) The opponent is the landlord of a residential building bearing Census No. S. H./2/130 situate in Birasas Pole in the city of Baroda. The petitioner is a tenant in possession of a part of the said building namely four rooms on the third floor (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) at Rs. 90/as rent per month. The opponent filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 586 of 1970 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Baroda against the petitioner inter alia for possession of the suit premises recovery of a sum of Rs. 747.03 Ps. being arrears of rent and mesne profits with future interest and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from transfering possession of the suit premises to any other person. The case of the opponent as set out in the plaint was that the petitioner was in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant since March 1 1962 and that a sum of Rs. 720/was due from him as arrears of rent up to January 31 1970 A notice dated February 28 1970 was therefore served upon the petitioner terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to handover vacant possession of the suit premises to the opponent and further calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. The petitioner in response to the said notice sent a sum of Rs. 270/only on or about March 20 1970 The opponent thereupon instructed the petitioner on March 24 1970 to send the balance of the amount due as arrears of rent. The opponent alleged that the petitioner did not comply with the requisition and he neither handed over vacant possession of the suit premises nor paid the arrears of rent. On the contrary the petitioner allegedly threatened that he would sub-let the suit premises. The suit was therefore filed on April 18 1970 for the reliefs aforementioned.
(3.) The petitioner by his written statement filed on August 28 1970 resisted the suit. He admitted that he was a tenant in occupation of the suit premises at the rent of Rs. 90.00per month. He alleged that the notice served upon him by the opponent was received on March 5 1970 and that he had thereafter sent a total sum of Rs. 810/on or before April 25 1970 He was therefore not a tenant in arrears of rent and the suit filed by the opponent was false and not maintainable. We are not concerned at this stage of the proceeding with the other defences raised by the petitioner. It would appear from the foregoing narration of facts that the petitioner has not raised dispute as to the standard rent of the suit premises.;