RAMBHAI JHENIDAS PANCHAL Vs. LALITABEN WD O RAMANLAL PANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) he petitioner is a tenant who has been unsuccessful in both the Courts below has come by way of this revision petition under sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act).

(2.) Opponent-landlady filed H.R.P. suit no 1749 of 1974 in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad on various allegations against the petitioner to get a decree of eviction in her favour. Though she was non-suited on almost all the grounds the suit was decreed in her favour on the ground of non-payment of rent. Initially it was the case that the petitioner-tenant was given the premises on leave and licence basis and therefore there was no relationship of landlord and tenant but ultimately it was conceded that the petitioner became the tenant and the proceedings went on under the Act. The suit premises were given to the petitioner under an agreement dated 10-3-1972 at the monthly rent of Rs. 90.00 for a period of one year. The plaintiff-landlady came out with many grounds for eviction to which I have already referred to but ultimately the dispute so far as this revision petition is concerned remains about the decree for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(3.) Mr. J. M. Panchal learned Advocate for the petitioner raised three-fold contentions. His first contention is that the petitioner is not liable to be evicted because the notice given for demanding the rent required to be issued under sec. 12 of the Act is not legal and valid.