Skip to content


Teli Nathu Dina Vs. Gulamali Kamalbhai MomIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenency
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1979)2GLR458
AppellantTeli Nathu Dina
RespondentGulamali Kamalbhai MomIn and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the tenant was in arrears for more than six months, there was no dispute about standard rent raised within one month of the service of the statutory notice, the rent was rightly held to be payable by month and it was also found that the tenant had failed to make the payment within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand......its judgment, annexure b. instead of filing the revision application under section 29(2) of the bombay rent act, the petitioner chose to file this special civil application which has come up for final hearing before me today.2. the eviction was ordered because the petitioner's case was held to be falling within the ambit of section 12(3)(a) of the bombay rent act. the suit notice was held to be legal and valid.3. both the courts below concurrently held that the petitioner's case squarely fell within the strict ambit of section 12(3)(a) of the bombay rent act. the tenant was in arrears for more than six months, there was no dispute about standard rent raised within one month of the service of the statutory notice, the rent was rightly held to be payable by month and it was also found.....
Judgment:

N.H. Bhatt, J.

1. This is a petition by one tenant, who was ordered to be evicted by the Small Causes, Court, Ahmedabad as per its order, Annexure A, confirmed by the Appellate Bench of that court as per its judgment, Annexure B. Instead of filing the revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, the petitioner chose to file this special civil application which has come up for final hearing before me today.

2. The eviction was ordered because the petitioner's case was held to be falling within the ambit of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit notice was held to be legal and valid.

3. Both the courts below concurrently held that the petitioner's case squarely fell within the strict ambit of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The tenant was in arrears for more than six months, there was no dispute about standard rent raised within one month of the service of the statutory notice, the rent was rightly held to be payable by month and it was also found that the tenant had failed to make the payment within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand.

The petition is liable to be rejected on two counts. Firstly, when alternative remedy was available and the petitioner did not choose to pursue that, the writ petitioner is not worthy to be entertained at all. Even if I hold that the petition is maintainable as such or alternatively held it to be a revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, I see no reason-not even a remote one-for any interference with the orders passed by the courts below. On this ground, I reject this petition with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

4. Nanavati, however, urged that looking to the very pitiable condition of the petitioner, some time to vacate should be given to him. Mr. Dave was initially reluctant to give any time and he was ready to give at the most six months' time. However, looking to the circumstances, I hold that two years' time should be given from to-day. If such an undertaking is not filed, the time to vacate as given above shall be deemed not to have been given. The usual undertaking would include the payment of arrears of rent and also it will be in the standard form prevalent in this court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //