JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---An interesting controversy has arisen in this case wherein both the trial Court and the Appeal Court have arrived at a concurrent finding against the petitioner-tenant that the non-payment by him of the electricity charges in respect of the suit premises constitutes an actionable breach within the meaning of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Rent Act"). The controversy assumes some significance because the issue that is raised and which is of some consequence, in so far as it would be applicable in numerous other cases, is the question as to whether the harsh action of eviction should follow in a case where the rent in question was tendered forthwith on the notice of demand being served, but the amount demanded under the head of electricity charges, which was in dispute, had not been tendered. It is not a matter of legal hair-splitting, but a question of a clear interpretation of section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act, which this Court is required to deliver on the facts of this dispute, which are set out below :

2. The petitioner-tenant is in occupation of a tenement on the ground floor in a house situated on Plot No. 5/2 within the municipal limits of Amalner. The tenancy is an old one, having commenced in the year 1938 when the rent was Rs. 8/- per month which was raised to Rs. 12 per month and subsequently, when the present landlord became the owner, to Rs. 13/- per month. The tenant approached the Court in November 1972 on the ground that the amount of Rs. 13 per month was inclusive of the electricity charges or, in other words, with an application that the Court should determine the exact quantum of rent payable. This litigation dragged on untill January, 1975 when the tenant withdrew the proceedings. On 18-8-1975, the landlord served a notice on him demanding arrears of seven months' rent at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month as also an amount of Rs. 197-04 paise, which were the electricity charges for the period from 1-7-1971 to 9-8-1975. This aspect is of some significance for two reasons, the first of them being that the arrears under the head of rent were for a period of seven months; whereas the arrears under the head of electricity charges covered a span of 49 months. This aspect of the matter is of some significance. The tenant sent a reply dated 20-8-1975 wherein he contended that the amount payable by him at Rs. 13/- per month was inclusive of the electricity charges. One needs to take note of the fact that the premises are extremely small, that the rate of electricity charges in those days was obviously much lower than what it is to-day and that, as the record indicates, the amount of electricity consumed in the premises was hardly in the vicinity of Re 1/- to Rs. 2/- per month. The background of the case also indicates that the monthly rent payable was varied from Rs. 12 per month to Rs. 13/- per month when the present landlord bought the premises.

3. When the tenant raised the contention that this additional amount covered the electricity charges, the landlord did not accept this position. The landlord's clear case at all times was that the rent payable was exclusive of the electricity charges, though that amount was recoverable from the tenant as an amenity that was provided with the premises and was, therefore, recoverable along with and under the head of rent. In view of the non-remittance of Rs. 197-84 paise when the tenant remitted the arrears of seven months' rent by money order on 20-8-1975, the landlord refused to accept the payment and instituted Suit No. 12 of 1977 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent under section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. This suit was resisted by the tenant on the ground that he cannot be construed as having committed an actionable default in so far as he had tendered the requisite amount of rent, that he was alwa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document