[1.0] Present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicants herein – original defendants to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.12.2006 passed by the learned trial Court – learned Additional Civil Judge, Una in Regular Civil Suit No.232/1992 as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court – learned Additional District Judge, Una in Regular Civil Appeal No.55 of 2012 by which both the Courts below have concurrently held against the applicants herein – original defendants with respect to the arrears of rent and have passed the eviction decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. [2.0] Shri Tolia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants as such does not presss the present revision application so far as the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court passing the eviction decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. However, has requested to grant to the applicants reasonable time to the applicants to vacate the suit premises.
[2.1] Shri Tolia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has further submitted that as such the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in observing in the impugned judgment and order confirming the standard rent at the rate of Rs.60 per month. It is submitted that as such the learned trial Court has specifically held the standard rent at the rate of Rs.30 per month and therefore, there seems to be a obvious mistake on the part of the learned Appellate Court in observing the standard rent at the rat of Rs.60 per month. Therefore, he has stated at the Bar that applicants would like to submit an appropriate application before the learned Appellate Court to review and/or modify the said order with respect to the standard rent only.
[3.0] Heard Shri Tolia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant – tenant and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below in holding that the applicants – original defendants were in arrears of rent for more than six months and that the case would fall under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. It appears that the applicants – original defendants were served with the statutory notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and the original defendants neither paid the entire arrears of rent within a period of one month from the receipt of the statutory notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act nor even raised any dispute with respect to standard rent within a period of one month from the dated of statutory notice and as the tenancy was found to be monthly and when all the ingredients of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act are satisfied and consequently when the learned trial Court passed the eviction decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act which has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any error and/or illegality which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. Shri Tolia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants is not in a position to point out how the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below are erroneous and/or illegal and/or contrary to the provisions of statute. Under the circumstances, the present Revision Application so far as challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court in passing the eviction decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act deserves to be dismissed.
[3.1] At this stage, Shri Tolia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has requested to grant one year's time to the applicant to vacate the suit premises on usual undertaking. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, six months' time can be granted to the applicants to vacate the suit premises on usual terms and conditions and on filing usual undertaking within a period of six weeks from today before this Court as well as the learned trial Court that the applicants are in exclusive possession of the suit premises and shall hand over the same within a period of six months from today and in the meantime they shall not transfer and/or alienate in any manner whatsoever to any other person and shall pay the mesne profit at the rate of Rs.30/ per month till they hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises within the stipulated time granted herein above.
[3.2] Now, so far as the request made by Shri Tolia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants to approach the learned Appellate Court by way of review application so far as determination of standard rent at the rate of Rs.60/ per month is concerned, it will be open for the applicants to submit an appropriate application for review before the learned Appellate Court and with respect to determination of standard rent by the Appellate Court and/or finding of the learned Appellate Court with respect to the standard rent at the rate of Rs.60/ per month as according to the applicants, there is a bonafide error and/or mistake on the part of the Appellate Court in mentioning the standard rent Rs.60/ as even the learned trial Court has fixed and determined the standard rent at the rate of Rs.30/ per month only.
[4.0] In view of the above, present Civil Revision Application is dismissed so far as challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court in passing the eviction decree under Section 12(3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act is concerned. However, considering the request made by Shri Tolia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant to grant reasonable time to the applicants to vacate the suit premises, the applicants are granted six months' time to vacate the suit premises on usual terms and conditions and on filing usual undertaking before this Court as well as before the learned trial Court within a period of six weeks from today that the applicants are in exclusive possession of the suit premises and that they shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the original plaintiff – landlord within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 04.03.2013 and that in the meantime they shall not transfer and/or alienate the suit premises to any person in any manner whatsoever and that in the meantime they shall pay the mesne profit at the rate of Rs.30/ per month. Now, so far as the finding given by the learned Appellate Court with respect to standard rent at Rs.60/ per month is concerned, it will be open for the applicants to submit appropriate application for review before the learned Appellate Court with respect to the finding on standard rent at rate of Rs.60/ per month is concerned and as and when such an application is given, the same be considered by the learned Appellate Court in accordance with law and on merits. With this, present Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
Civil Application No.8710 of 2012 In view of dismissal of main Civil Revision Application, Civil Application is also dismissed.
(M.R. Shah, J.) menon