Judgment :

Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.

1. The present Special Leave Petition is a landlord's appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat on 30th September 2013 allowing Civil Revision Application No. 44/2013 by the tenant.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this SLP are as follows:

Some time in 1971 the landlady had let out the first floor portion of the suit premises to the present Respondent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. The standard rent was fixed by a court order in the year 1971 itself at the contractual rent of Rs. 70/- per month. On 9th March 1987 the Petitioner issued a legal notice to the Respondent-tenant stating that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months i.e. on and after 1st March 1986. Various other breaches were also pointed out by the said-notice and a claim for bonafide requirement by the landlord and his family members was also made Under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The Respondent tenant replied to the notice denying all the allegations by a letter dated 9 April 1987. This was followed by an eviction suit filed in 1987 under various grounds including arrears of rent Under Section 12(3)(a), Under Section 12(3)(b), bonafide requirement, alteration in the suit premises, and causing nuisance to the landlord.

3. The suit was tried by the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad and dismissed. In appeal, the appellate bench held by a judgment dated 28th January 2013 that the ground of eviction Under Section 12(3)(b) was made out. Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act reads as under:

In any other case, no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if, on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit if finally decided and also pays costs of me suit as directed by the Court.

The appellate bench held:

25. Point No. 1

Shri B.K. Damani learned Advocate for the Respondent argued that notice dated 09.03.1987 produced at Exh. 23 shows nothing regarding Municipal tax and no demand of tax was made by the land lord in the said notice. It is true that notice required Under Section 12(2) of the Act produced at Exh. 23, no particular amount for tax is averred in the notice by the landlord. But the notice disclosed that rent was due and Plaintiff had demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month from 1.3.1986 till the date of issuance of the notice (date of issuance of the notice is 9.3.1987). Earlier we have held that suit notice is legal and valid.

26. It is not disputed by both the parties that amount of tax was to be borne by the tenant and not by the landlord. Therefore, when the suit filed on the ground of arrears of rent, then it attracts the provision of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act.

27. Shri Dossani learned advocate for the Respondent argued that suit attract by provision of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, Shri Dossani further argued that on receipt of the notice tenant-Defendant-Respondent did not file any application for fixation of standard rent as provided Under Section 11(3) of the Bombay Rent Act and on the first date of hearing of the suit, all amounts of rent due should be deposited by the tenant in the court and first date of hearing should be treated as the date of framing of issues. It is true that suit attracts provision of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act and in the present case on the receipt of notice [Under Section 12(2) of the Act] tenant Respondent did not file an application for fixation of standard rent of the suit premises. Therefore, tenant-Defendants-Respondent had to deposit the amount of rent due from him on the date of framing of issues. In the present case issues were framed vide Ex. 19 on 3.8.1994 that means rent from 1.3.1986 to 31.7.1994 ought to have been deposited by the Respondent ten