BAI DAHIBA HEIR AND L R OF DECD AMBALAL MAGANLAL DESAI Vs. JITENDRA KANAIYALAL PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- * * * *

(2.) Coming next to submission No. 3 Which is the most important submission made by Mr. Patel is that there was an obligation on the appellate Court to fix other date to enable the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent found due before it passed a decree for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. It is true that the trial Court had found that the rent was due from 1-11-1963. It was the appellate Court which reversed that finding and recorded a finding that the rent was due from 1 The question that arises for consideration is whether there is any such obligation imposed upon the Court. It appears that this argument is based on analogy that the Court has to fix other date when there is dispute regarding the standard rent and the standard rent is fixed by the Court to enable the tenant to pay the rent due on the basis of the standard rent fixed. If the appellate Court enhances the standard rent it has also to fix such other date to enable the tenant to pay or tender the different in the standard rent fixed by the trial Court and that fixed by the appellate Court. In support of that argument Mr. Patel relied upon several decisions.

(3.) In Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 1341 it is observed:-