A tenant is not entitled to raise a dispute about the standard rent in a suit for possession under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, if the tenant has not filed an application for that purpose within one month from the receipt of the landlord's notice.

Headnote:
RENT ACT - STANDARD RENT - SECTION 12(3)(A) - DISPUTE REGARDING STANDARD RENT MUST BE RAISED WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM RECEIPT OF NOTICE - FAILURE TO DO SO BARS TENANT FROM RAISING DISPUTE IN SUIT - NOTICE DEMANDING AGREED RENT NOT INVALID - PAYMENT OF RS. 525 BY TENANT INSUFFICIENT TO COVER ARREARS AT STANDARD RENT OF RS. 11 PER MONTH - TENANT LIABLE TO DELIVER POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:

The landlord filed a suit for possession and arrears of rent against the tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Rent Act). The tenant resisted the suit, claiming that the standard rent was less than the agreed rent and that he was ready and willing to pay the rent. The trial court determined the standard rent at Rs. 11 per month and passed a decree for certain arrears, but dismissed the landlord's claim for possession. The landlord appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal and granted a decree for possession.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the tenant was not entitled to raise a dispute about the standard rent in the suit because he had not filed an application for that purpose within one month from the receipt of the landlord's notice, as required by section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. The Court also held that the notice demanding the agreed rent was not invalid, and that the payment of Rs. 525 by the tenant was insufficient to cover the arrears at the standard rent of Rs. 11 per month. Therefore, the tenant was liable to deliver possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant was entitled to raise a dispute about the standard rent in the suit without filing an application within one month from the receipt of the landlord's notice? 2. Whether the notice demanding the agreed rent was invalid? 3. Whether the payment of Rs. 525 by the tenant was sufficient to cover the arrears at the standard rent of Rs. 11 per month?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the tenant was not entitled to raise a dispute about the standard rent in the suit because he had not filed an application for that purpose within one month from the receipt of the landlord's notice, as required by section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Harbanslal Jagmohandax and another v. Prabhudas Shivlal, which held that a dispute regarding standard rent or permitted increases must be raised within one month from the date of service of the notice under section 12(2) of the Rent Act, and that it is not enough to raise a dispute for the first time in the written statement. 2. The Court held that the notice demanding the agreed rent was not invalid, as the landlord and the tenant both knew the quantum of rent and permitted increases that had remained unpaid. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bhagabandas Agarwalla v. Bhagwandas and others, which held that a notice exchanged between the landlord and the tenant should be construed liberally and not for the purpose of finding any fault. 3. The Court held that the payment of Rs. 525 by the tenant was insufficient to cover the arrears at the standard rent of Rs. 11 per month, as the tenant was not entitled to raise a dispute about the standard rent in the suit. Therefore, the tenant was liable to deliver possession.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs. The interim stay granted in the proceeding was vacated, but the petitioner was granted two months' time to vacate.

JUDGMENT - Gadgil J.-This petition was referred to the Division Bench by Masodkar J., by his order dated September 21, 1982.

2. The matter pertains to the eviction proceedings taken out by the landlord (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) against the tenant Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain thereinafter referred to as “the defendant”) under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”). The premises in question consist of two rooms and an adjoining tin-shed in a house bearing; CTS No. 1276/B in Lane No. 3, at Dhulia. The house is owned by the plaintiff and on August 6, 1967, the defendant took the premises on a. monthly rent of Rs. 35. The defendant fell in arrears from December 1, 1960, and hence the plaintiff gave a notice dated “April 15, 1972, calling upon the-defendant to deliver possession and asking him to pay all the arrears. The defendant did not give any reply. However, he sent Rs. 525 by money order to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed Regular Civil Suit No. 237 of 1972 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhulia, for possession and claiming arrears,

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant. He raised a contention that the standard rent of the premises was less than the rent of Rs. 35 per month. In addition, he also alleged that he was ready and willing to pay the rent and that there was .no cause for the plaintiff to claim possession.

4. The trial Court determined the standard rent at Rs. 1l per month and a decree for certain arrears was passed. However, the plaintiffs claim for possession was dismissed. The plaintiff took the matter to the District Court in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1976. The learned District Judge by his judgment and decree dated August 17, 1978, allowed the appeal by granting decree for possession. It is this decree that is being challenged by the defendant-tenant in the present petition.

5. The main contention of Shri Rane, learned advocate for the petitioner, is that the standard rent fixed at Rs. 11 per month and that the amount of Rs. 525 which the defendant-petitioner had sent immediately after the plaintiff's notice was sufficient to cover all the arrears and as such the learned District Judge, should not have granted a decree for possession on the ground of default in payment of rent. As against this, Shri Baphna, learned advocate for the respondent, submitted that the determination of the standard-rent by the trial Court and by the District Court was not permissible as the plaintiff's claim fell under section 12 (3) (a) of the Rent Act. He also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court for the purpose1 of contending that in a case falling under section 12 (3) (a), it is not permissible to raise a dispute about the standard rent unless the tenant makes an application for that purpose within one month from the receipt of the notice-under section 12 of the Rent Act. As far as this point is concerned, we do not think that the matter can be of any controversy. A similar question had arisen before the Supreme Court in the case of (Harbanslal Jagmohandax and another v, Prabhudas Shivlal)1 and the relevant Head Note runs as follows:-

“In order to avoid the operation of section 12(3) (a) of the Act the dispute in regard to standard rent or permitted increases must be raised at the latest before the expiry of one month from the date of service of notice under section 12(2) of the Act and it is not enough to raise a dispute for the first time in written statement.

The view that disputing within one month of the service of the notice terminating the tenancy is one mode of raising a dispute an i there is another mode of raising the dispute at any stage of the suit nullifies the provisions contained in section 12 and Explanation thereto and confers a right on the tenant where the legislation does not contemplate such a right”.

6. This Court in the case of (Jaypal Bandu Adake and another v.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document