Back
Bombay High Court
AGGARWAL
Ganpat - Appellant
Versus
Motilal Champalal Lunawat - Respondent
Decided On : 11/26/1976
BOMBAY RENT ACT - ARREARS OF RENT - NOTICE OF DEMAND - VALIDITY - MISTAKE IN DEMAND - CONSTRUCTION OF NOTICE - NEGLECT TO PAY RENT - RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE OF TENANCY - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH S.12(3)(B) - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent and reasonable and bona fide personal requirement under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The petitioner issued a notice of demand for arrears of rent, permitted increases, and municipal taxes. The respondent remitted the entire amount demanded by money orders, but the petitioner refused to accept them. The trial court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the increases and taxes demanded and that the respondent had not neglected to pay the arrears of rent. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the notice of demand was invalid due to the petitioner's false and inflated demands for permitted increases and municipal taxes. The Court found that the petitioner's mistakes in the notice were not innocent or harmless and that such serious infirmities invalidated the notice. The Court also held that the respondent had not neglected to pay the arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of the notice and that the respondent was entitled to relief against forfeiture of tenancy despite non-compliance with S.12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice of demand for arrears of rent, permitted increases, and municipal taxes was valid. 2. Whether the respondent had neglected to pay the arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of the notice. 3. Whether the respondent was entitled to relief against forfeiture of tenancy despite non-compliance with S.12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A notice of demand for arrears of rent, permitted increases, and municipal taxes under S.12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act must be honest and accurate. A demand which is fictitious or untenable cannot be excused on the ground of mistake or oversight. Such serious infirmities will invalidate the notice. 2. Neglect to pay rent under S.12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act requires a finding of actual neglect on the part of the tenant. Where the tenant has made a genuine attempt to pay the arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of the notice, but the landlord has refused to accept the payment, there is no neglect on the part of the tenant. 3. Relief against forfeiture of tenancy under S.12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act may be granted even if the tenant has not strictly complied with the provisions of the section, where the tenant has shown a willingness to pay the arrears of rent and the landlord's conduct has been oppressive or unconscionable.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The petitioner was ordered to pay the respondent the costs of the civil appeal and the petition.
2. The respondent has been a tenant of the suit premises for several years. Prior to December 1958 he was paying monthly rent of Rupees 50/- to the then owner. Between December 1958 and April 1964, the owner was different. The present petitioner purchased the suit property in April 1964. The petitioner's predecessor-in-title had filed Regular Civil Suit No.245 of 1962 against the respondent, in which the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 16/- per month. A sum of Rs. 1475/- was paid on account of rent in that suit. That suit came to be dismissed on 28th December 1963. The petitioner's predecessor-in-title preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No.407 of 1964. That appeal was prosecuted by the petitioner, but it came to be dismissed, on 28th September 1965.
3. The petitioner then proceeded to issue a notice dated 7th December 1967 (Ex.66) for determining the contractual tenancy and for demanding the arrears of rent from 1st April 1962 to 17th January 1968 at the rate of Rs. 16/- per month aggregating to Rs. 920/-, Rs. 69/- by way of permitted increases for the said period and Rs. 412.91 by way of municipal taxes and thus in all Rs. 1401.91. The said notice was served on 15th December 1967. On 8th January 1968, a sum of Rupees 989/- was remitted by the respondent by Money Order, but the petitioner refused to accept the same. This was followed by a reply dated 13th January 1968 (Ex.67) from the respondent recording the fact that the money order was refused and that the petitioner was not entitled in law to recover Rs. 412.91 by way of municipal taxes. The petitioner did not choose to send a reply to the said letter.
4. There was a lull till the petitioner once again issued a notice dated 22nd November 1968 (Ex.48) terminating the tenancy of the respondent and making a demand for arrears of rent. The present demand consisted of Rs. 1288/- by way of arrears of rent from 1st April 1962 to 17th December 1968 at the rate of Rs. 16/- per month, Rs. 96.60 by way of permitted increases and Rs. 495.49 by way of municipal taxes, and thus in all for Rs 1880.09. The notice was served on 29th November 1968. The respondent remitted a sum of Rupees 1900/- by two money orders, one of Rs. 900/- and the other of Rupees 1000/-. Both these money order's were refused by the petitioner. The coupon in respect of money order of Rs. 900/- is Ex.58 and the other coupon relating to the money order of Rs. 1000/- is Ex.59. The contents of both the coupons are in these words:-
Ex. 58.
"Saprem Namaskar to Shri Ganpatrao alias Gajanan Sambhuappa Ghongade residing at Latur from Motilal Kachrulal Lunawat on behalf of
Motilal Champalal. Your notice dated 22-11-68 is received on 29-11-68. As demanded in your notice, a total sum of Rupees Nineteen Hundred in two Money Orders respectively for Rupees Nine Hundred and Rupees One thousand is sent herewith. You are requested to accept the same and acknowledge the receipt thereof.
Yours SD/- Motilal Kachrulal Lunawat 26-32-68."
The respondent by letter dated 1st March 1969 (Ex.68) placed on record the fact of refusal of the said two money orders. On 3rd March 1969, the petitioner filed the present suit for ejectment.
5. The trial Court calculated the arrears from 18th December 1959 to 22nd December 1968 at the rate of Rs. 16/-per month and arrived at the figure of Rs. 1712/-. The Court gave credit for R
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
