The provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates(Control) Act, 1947 must be strictly complied with by the tenant in order to avail the protection against eviction.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - STANDARD RENT - FIXATION - REGULARITY OF RENT PAYMENT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 12(3)(B) OF THE BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES(CONTROL) ACT, 1947 - Whether the tenant has complied with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Act - Whether the tenant is entitled to the protection of section 12(3)(b) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, tenants of the suit premises, filed an application for fixation of standard rent under section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates(Control) Act, 1947 (the Act). The landlords filed a suit for possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent and personal use. The trial court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 12/- per month, dismissed the suit for possession, and decreed the landlords Rs. 180/-. Both parties filed appeals and revisions. The appellate court upheld the standard rent but ordered eviction, holding that the tenant had committed defaults in rent payment.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the tenant had not complied with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Act, which requires the tenant to pay or tender the standard rent and permitted increases regularly till the suit is decided. The court found that the tenant had not paid the rent regularly on the 10th of each month as required by the court order. The court also noted that the tenant had made several deposits of rent in arrears, but these were not made regularly month by month.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant has complied with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Act. 2. Whether the tenant is entitled to the protection of section 12(3)(b) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 12(3)(b) of the Act strictly, holding that the tenant must strictly comply with the conditions of paying or tendering the standard rent and permitted increases regularly till the suit is decided. The court rejected the argument that substantial compliance with the conditions would suffice. The court relied on several Supreme Court and High Court judgments that had held that the provisions of section 12(3)(b) must be strictly complied with.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's writ petitions challenging the eviction order. However, on compassionate grounds, the court directed the tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord on the expiry of a period of 2 years from the date of the judgment. The tenant was directed to file a normal undertaking within 8 weeks, failing which the possession would be delivered to the landlord forthwith.

JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---The petitioners by way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge the legality and validity of the judgement and order dated 13th July, 1983 passed by the III Extra Asstt. Judge, Solapur in Revision Application No. 27 of 1981 confirming the judgement and order dated 30th April, 1981 passed by the II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur in Misc. Application No. 150 of 1996. The other Writ Petition No. 4550 of 1983 challenges the same order as the Civil Appeal No. 612 of 1981 and the Revision Application No. 27 of 1981 arising out of the judgement and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1400 of 1976 have been decided by a common judgement. Both the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.

2.The petitioners are the original applicants/ tenants and the respondents are the original opponents/landlords of the suit premises. The petitioners filed Misc. Civil Application No. 150 of 1976 on 7th June, 1976 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Solapur for fixation of standard rent of the suit premises under section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates(Control) Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" . The petitioners have been residing in the suit premises for a very long time. According to the petitioners, at the beginning the rent of the suit premises were Rs. 3/- per month which was increased to Rs. 5/- per month and thereafter to Rs. 12/- per month. The landlord issued a quit notice to the tenants on 24th April, 1976 terminating the petitioners tenancy and asking the petitioners to vacate the suit premises. This was received by the petitioners on 30th April, 1976. The petitioners, however, denied that they were in arrears of rent from Sept. 1975. It was also stated that they have paid the rent upto March, 1976. According to the petitioners, in the month of September, 1940 the rent of the premises was Rs. 3/- per month only. Thus the standard rent ought to have been fixed at Rs. 3/- only. It was further stated that the respondents never gave the receipt for the rent paid to them. Thus a prayer was made in the application for fixing of standard rent at Rs. 3/- per month. The claim of the petitioners were resisted by the landlords. They contended that the standard rent ought to have been fixed at Rs. 12/- per month. The respondents -landlords filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 1400 of 1976 in the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division , Solapur for decree of possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent. The suit had been filed after the filing of the application by the petitioners for the fixation of standard rent. It was pleaded that the premises were required for a bona fide personal interest. It was also pleaded that the conduct of the petitioners amounted to nuisance. The allegations made by the respondent- landlords were denied by the petitioners in the written statement filed. It was contended by the petitioners that they were in possession of the premises since last about 40 years. Thus it was stated that they suffered greater hardship if the decree of possession came to be passed. During the pendency of the Misc. Civil Application No. 150 of 76 the petitioners filed an application for fixation of interim rent on 30th August, 1976. On this application an order came to be passed on 14th March, 1978 directing the petitioners to deposit as interim rent Rs. 7/- per month. This was to be paid on 15th July, 1978 and thereafter it was to be paid on or before 10th day of every month. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners filed Revision Application No. 5 of 1978 before the District Court, Solapur. The District Judge was pleased to fix the interim rent in the revision application at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month. The Revision Application itself came to be dismissed on 30th July, 1979. Since both the matters i.e. Misc. Application No. 150 of 1976 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1997 Supreme(Bom) 519

The provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates(Control) Act, 1947 must be strictly complied with by the tenant in order to avail the protection against eviction.

Cases Referred (5)

Judicial Analysis