- (1.) THIS is a petition by the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent findings of fact that the monthly rent of the premises in dispute was Rs. 50/- and that for a period of nearly four years, the petitioner tenant had failed and neglected to make payment of the rent and continued to do so until after expiration of the period of one month after the notice under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (for short the said Rent Act) was served on him. In short, there is a concurrent finding against the petitioner-tenant that he is defaulter and that his case is covered by the unamended provisions of section 12 (3) (a) of the said Rent Act. The relevant facts may be stated as under :
(2.) THE premises in dispute are a part of a bunglow, at 16, Ahmednagar Road, Pune. The original petitioner - Peter Joseph Bhonsale, since deceased, claimed to be the tenant since 1950. The premises consist of a three room block. They initially belonged to His Highness The Agakhan. Initially the petitioners wife Martha Peter Bhonsale was staying in the premises and since the petitioner Peter Joseph Bhonsale was in Government service, he was residing in the Government quarters.
(3.) THE first respondent - Poona Diocemon Corporation Pvt. Ltd. , - is a registered public Trust established for the welfare of Catholic Christians. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were, at the relevant time, the trustees. Respondent No. 5 is the newly added party who seems to have purchased the property recently. On 17th March, 1976, the first respondent-Trust gave notice to the tenant, which is at Ex. 25. It was served on the tenant on 18th March, 1976, the very next day. The notice stated that the rent of the premises was Rs. 50/- p. m. The tenancy was a monthly tenancy commencing with the first day of every month according to English calender. It categorically stated that the tenant was a habitual defaulter and was in arrears of rent since 1st January, 1972 and inspite of repeated reminders to pay the said arrears, he had not paid the said amount. Under the circumstances, the first respondent-Trust terminated the tenancy by the end of April 1976 and called upon him to pay the entire arrears and costs. There is no dispute that the notice was duly served on the tenant.;