A dispute about the standard rent under the Bombay Rent Act may exist on the date of the notice issued under section 12(2) or within one month thereafter, and an application under section 11(3) of the Act is not necessary to establish such a dispute.

Headnote:
RENT ACT - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT - SECTION 12(3)(A) AND 12(3)(B) - DISPUTE ABOUT STANDARD RENT - EXISTENCE OF DISPUTE ON DATE OF NOTICE OR WITHIN ONE MONTH THEREAFTER - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 11(3) NOT NECESSARY - COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 12(3)(B) - PAYMENTS MADE AS DIRECTED BY COURT - APPEAL COURT - REVERSAL OF FINDING IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT WITHOUT CROSS-OBJECTION OR APPEAL BY RESPONDENT - LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the decree for possession passed against him by the lower courts under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (Bombay Rent Act). The landlord had filed a suit for possession on the grounds of default in payment of rent, erection of permanent structures without consent, and reasonable and bona fide requirement. The trial court decreed the suit on the grounds of default in payment of rent and erection of permanent structures, while the appellate court reversed the finding on the latter ground but upheld the decree on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the case fell under section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, as there was a dispute about the standard rent on the date of the notice issued by the landlord under section 12(2) of the Act. The Court found that the petitioner had complied with the conditions under section 12(3)(b) by making payments as directed by the Court. The Court also held that the appellate court had the jurisdiction to reverse a finding in favor of the appellant without a cross-objection or appeal by the respondent, as the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically provide that a respondent may support the decree under appeal on a ground which has been held against him in the Court below.
Issues: 1. Whether the case fell under section 12(3)(a) or 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. Whether the petitioner had complied with the conditions under section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. 3. Whether the appellate court had the jurisdiction to reverse a finding in favor of the appellant without a cross-objection or appeal by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A dispute about the standard rent may exist on the date of the notice issued under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act or within one month thereafter, and an application under section 11(3) of the Act is not necessary to establish such a dispute. 2. Compliance with the conditions under section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act is established if the tenant makes payments as directed by the Court, even if such payments are made after the dates originally fixed. 3. The provisions of Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure allow a respondent to support the decree under appeal on a ground which has been held against him in the Court below, without the need for a cross-objection or appeal.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the decree for possession passed by the lower courts was upheld.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR.:---A two storied house in Amalner Town of Jalgaon District is tenanted by the petitioner in this petition and the respondent is the owner of the said house and, therefore, the landlord of the petitioner. The annual rent of the house, which will hereinafter be referred to as "the suit premises", is Rs. 500. That rent was fixed in the year 1957 when the petitioner took the suit premises on lease from the respondent, both for residence and business. It has been found by the two courts below that though the rent is calculated at Rs. 500 per annum, it is payable by the month at the rate of Rs. 41.65. The suit out of which the present proceedings have arisen its Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 1971 filed by the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Amalner for possession of the suit premises on the grounds that the petitioner has failed to pay the arrears of rent, which were for a period of more than six months, within one month after the notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act"), was served upon him, that the petitioner had erected permanent structures on the suit premises without the consent of the respondent in writing, and that the respondent required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. The suit was resisted by the petitioner by denying the permanent character of the structures erected upon the suit premises, by denying that there was any default on his part in the payment of rent, and further by denying the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the respondent. It was also contended on his behalf that if a decree for possession were passed it would cause greater hardship to him than the hardship that should be caused to the respondent if a decree for eviction were refused.

2. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 27th of September, 1976 decreed the suit on two grounds. He held that the petitioner was guilty of default in the payment of the arrears of rent and a decree was warranted under the provisions of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. He further held that the petitioner was guilty of erecting permanent structures on the suit premises without the consent of the respondent in writing. On the third ground he held that though the respondent had proved his bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises the petitioner would suffer greater hardship if a decree for possession were passed. In the result he passed the decree as mentioned above only on two grounds.

3. The petitioner preferred on appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1976, which was heard and dismissed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Dhule by his judgment and order dated 21st of September, 1979. The learned Extra Assistant Judge upheld the finding of the learned trial Judge that the petitioner was guilty of default in the payment of rent, thus meriting a decree for eviction under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. He, however, reversed the finding of the learned trial Judge relating to the erection of the permanent structures on the suit premises. On this aspect the learned Assistant Judge took the view that though the structures have been erected by the petitioner without the written consent of the respondent, those structures were by way of repairs and, therefore, did not warrant a decree for possession. On the question of the reasonable and bona fide requirement, the learned Assistant Judge concurred with the view of the learned trial Judge but he differed from him on what is for brevitys sake called the comparative hardship---a question arising under section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. He held that greater hardship will be caused to the respondent if a decree for possession were refused. The net result was the confirmation of the decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of default in the pay

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1980 Supreme(Bom) 131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYR.A. Jahagirdar, J.Gulabchand Ramchand Jain.... Petitioner.VersusNoorbeg Umarbeg Mirza.... Respondent.Writ Petition No. 2598 of 1979, decided on 2-5-80.Advocates appeared :M.A. Rane, for petitioner.P.M. Shah, for respondent.

A dispute about the standard rent under the Bombay Rent Act may exist on the date of the notice issued under section 12(2) or within one month thereafter, and an application under section 11(3) of the Act is not necessary to establish such a dispute.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.
Gulabchand Ramchand Jain.... Petitioner.
Versus
Noorbeg Umarbeg Mirza.... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 2598 of 1979, decided on 2-5-80.
Advocates appeared :
M.A. Rane, for petitioner.
P.M. Shah, for respondent.