1. Eviction suit for non-payment of rent — Dispute over standard rent — Non-compliance with mandatory application requirement under Explanation I to Section 12, Bombay Rents Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1606
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Smt. Shantaben thaokrdas bansal (dead) thr. Lr. – Appellant
Vs.
Ramanbhai Chhotubhai Patel And Another – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8457 of 2014
Decided on : 20-03-2025
Under the Bombay Rents Act, 1947, a tenant disputing standard rent must file a formal application in court within one month of the demand notice per Explanation I to Section 12. Mere denial in a reply notice is insufficient to establish readiness to pay and avoid eviction for non-payment.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 12 - Tenant disputes standard rent after six years of compliance; failure to file application as mandated. Court held that the tenant's denial was an afterthought and there must be compliance with statutory requirements for disputes. (Para 12)
(B) Jurisdiction - Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in rent control proceedings is limited; findings of fact by lower courts are not to be disturbed lightly. (Paras 11 and 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant is the landlord whose tenant defaulted in paying agreed standard rent since 1982. The previous order set a standard rent of Rs.50/- in 1976 and was accepted by the tenant until a dispute arose after receiving a legal notice in 1983.
Findings of Court:
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by overturning concurrent judgments on grounds of non-compliance with statutory mandates for raising rent disputes.
Issues: Whether the tenant's dispute over rent after years of compliance is valid and if the tenant adhered to legal requirements for disputing rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The tenant's challenge to the rent was not legitimate as it lacked timely compliance with the Act's provisions. Appeals allowed.
Result: The eviction order reinstated.
Act Referred
BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT: S.12, S.12(3)(a), S.12(2)
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.106
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.106
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Landlord contends mandatory application not filed and rent unpaid — Tenant argues denial of rent in reply notice suffices as compliance with Section 12(3)(a). (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Denial in reply notice does not substitute mandatory court application — Consent decrees are binding — Dispute must be genuine and not a moonshine to avoid eviction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. To dispute standard rent and avoid eviction, a tenant must file a court application within the statutory period as mandated by Explanation I to Section 12. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. High Court judgment set aside — Eviction order restored — Appeal allowed. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. What is the procedure for a tenant to dispute standard rent after receiving a demand notice under the Bombay Rents Act?
The tenant must file an application before the Court for fixation of standard rent before the expiry of one month from the notice and subsequently tender the rent specified in the Court's order. (Para 11 )
7. Does a denial of the standard rent in a reply to a legal notice constitute compliance with the statutory requirements for disputing rent?
No, a mere denial in a reply notice is insufficient; the tenant must make a formal application to the jurisdictional Court within the prescribed time under Explanation I to Section 12. (Para 12 )
8. Are consent orders regarding the fixation of standard rent binding on the parties?
Yes, a decision rendered by the Court, whether obtained by consent or otherwise, is binding on the parties provided it was arrived at consciously. (Para 15 , 16 )
9. What is the nature of a dispute regarding rent required to prevent eviction?
A dispute must be real and genuine; it cannot be a moonshine or an afterthought raised merely to avoid eviction, especially if the tenant previously complied with the rent order. (Para 16 , 17 )
ORDER :
1. The appellant before us is the landlord. Respondent No. 1 is the tenant and respondent No. 2 is the erstwhile landlord.
2. On an earlier occasion, an application was filed by the predecessor-in-title of the respondent No.1 for fixation of the standard rent on the file of the Additional Small Causes Court, Surat in HRP Application No.600 of 1976. An order was passed with the consent of the parties, fixing the standard rent at Rs.50/- per month in HRP Application No.600/1976, on 01.07.1976, which has already attained finality inter-se the parties.
3. Respondent No.1, being the tenant who consented to the fixation of standard rent at Rs.50/- per month in the aforesaid order, defaulted in the payment of rent from 01.06.1982.
4. Accordingly, a legal notice was issued to respondent No.1 on 09.12.1983 by the erstwhile landlord, while acknowledging the fact that the default in the payment of rent was only from 01.06.1982 and, therefore, he was duly complying with the payment of rent at Rs.50/- per month as agreed upon since 1976, until then.
5. Strangely, for the very first time, the respondent No.1 disputed the standard rent of Rs.50/-per month in his reply to the legal notice on 24.12.1983. However, as mandated under Explanation I to Section 12 of the BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), appropriate application was not filed by respondent No.1 before the Court for the fixation of the standard rent after the issuance of the legal notice.
6. Under those circumstances, the erstwhile landlord, namely, respondent No.2 filed a suit for eviction bearing Suit No.98/1984. The Trial Court passed a decree for eviction inter alia holding that there was no compliance of the statutory mandate, in view of the denial made by respondent No.1 in the reply notice and the fact that there was a default in the payment of rent. The appeal filed by respondent No.1 also met with the same result. However, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court, by the impugned judgment, while placing reliance upon the decision rendered in Devkaran Nenshi Tanna (Dead) By Lrs. v. Manharlal Nenshi and Another - (1994) 5 SCC 681, wherein it was held that the dispute regarding the rent fixed can be raised at any point of time, was pleased to set aside the concurrent judgments rendered by both the Courts.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been filed before us by the appellant-landlord.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on facts, there is no dispute with respect to both, the non-filing of the application by respondent No.1 as mandated under the Act and the non-payment of rent by respondent No.1. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, has grossly exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it while passing the impugned judgment. In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment will have to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, namely, the respondent No.1 submits that there was a specific denial in the reply notice, a fact which has been duly taken note of by the High Court. In such view of the matter, there is due compliance of Section 12 (3)(a) of the Act and, therefore, there is no need for any interference with the impugned judgment.
10. We would like to place on record the relevant provisions of the Act:
12(1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act.
(2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or p
