dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4539 OF 1991 PETITION NO.4539 OF 1991 PETITION NO.4539 OF 1991 Shri Shrikisan Champalal Somani Petitioner Vs. Shri Champalal Gulabchand Pokarna Respondent. None for the Petitioner. Mr.V.Z.Kankaria for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 20th November, 2008. : 20th November, 2008. : 20th November, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : None for the petitioner. Mr.V.Z. Kankaria, the learned counsel appears for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of facts with regard to the issue revolving around Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act as the petitioner/tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months on the date of issue of put notice and, therefore,he is a defaulter. 3. There is ample material on record as observed by the courts below that the petitioner/tenant neglected to make the payment and in fact not paid the monthly rent in time. He was in arrears. The submission that the tenancy was yearly was also negatived by both the ( 2 ) courts for want of material and documents to that effect. Merely because a tenant is also liable to pay the education cess or other taxes that itself cannot be the reason not to make monthly payment as agreed. The receipt of lumpsum even if accepted by the landlord that itself cannot be the reason to deprive the landlord’s case of default as admittedly tenant has not paid the monthly rent regularly. The material on record shows that the tenant was not willing and ready to pay the rent and in fact neglected to pay rent regularly and, therefore, he is a habitual defaulter as contemplated under the Act. Having once held that the court has no option but to grant the decree of eviction on that ground. Any composite notice claiming that the arrears of rent and education cess is not sufficient to give any protection to the defaulter/tenant as sought to be contended in the matter. The liability to pay the monthly rent once established and the tenant is in arrears for more than six months, the grant of decree of eviction need no interference. The liability of only taxes even if any in no way can be read to mean that the tenancy was yearly and not monthly, specially when there is no document to support the same. 4. Having once observed by the courts below that the ( 3 ) petitioner/tenant is defaulter and liable to be evicted, I see there is no perversity in the matter. 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)