JUDGMENT- M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Rent Act") has been the subject-matter of several judicial decisions, but there will always be yet another angle that is canvassed before the Court and which will require elucidation. The question that has arisen in this case is as to whether a decree in eviction would still follow if in spite of defaults committed during the pendency of the proceedings under section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act the arrears are deposited from time to time, the time gaps between such deposits being relatively wide, but the entire quantum of arrears having been cleared prior to the date of the judgment. In substance, what is contended is that the tender of the arrears regardless of how and when it is done will have the effect of purging the acts of default that entitled the landlord to a decree. The support to this contention stems from the fact that since a Court has power to condone delays as far as money defaults are concerned, where a Court accepts or permits the acceptance of the rent, that is in arrears or that has not been deposited regardless of the fact that the time-factor has been overstepped, that it must be held that the lapse in question has also been condoned. The argument proceeds on the footing that such condonation extinguishes the cause of action and, therefore, disentitles the landlord to a decree in eviction. The legal effects of accepting such a position in law, in the first instance, and the consequences of upholding such a condonation have been debated in this petition. The facts giving rise to the controversy are enumerated below.

2. The petitioner before this Court is the original plaintiff who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 159 of 1976 on 28-6-1976 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar, for eviction from the suit premises of the original defendant who died during the pendency of the suit and is represented by his legal heirs. The claim was based on two grounds, firstly, under section 12 of the Rent Act on the ground that the tenant was in arrears since 1-3-1974, and secondly, under section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. As far as the second ground, namely, the bona fide requirement is concerned, the trial Court itself negatived the same, principally, on the ground that the plaintiff is residing at Surat and was working there and we are, therefore, not concerned with that ground. However, as far as the arrears were concerned, the trial Court took a serious note of two factors, the first of them being that even though an interim order had been passed in the standard rent application filed by the tenant directing him to pay the rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month and not Rs. 20/- as was demanded by the plaintiff that the entire arrears for three years were not deposited and that subsequently as the record of the Court indicates, the default had continued virtually from month to month, the longest gap being of a period of 31/2 years. The learned trial Judge, and very correctly to my mind, on the record of this case, concluded that the defaults had been regular, persistent and gross and that in these circumstances it would be fallacious to even argue that it had been demonstrated that the tenant is ready and willing to pay the rent in respect of the premises. The spirit of section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act essentially extends to testing finally whether the tenant is serious about paying the rent which is not only a moral but a legal obligation and provides that where there is default in complying with this obligation that a decree shall follow. The ingredients of the section were considered by the learned trial Judge and he held that since the defaults were regular, manifold and persistent that a decree was liable to follow. It is material to point out that the learned tri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document