Back
Bombay High Court
JOSHI
Sd.Umar Sd.Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
Dadamiya Husenbhai - Respondent
Decided On : 07/25/1975
BOMBAY RENT ACT - STANDARD RENT - DEFAULT IN PAYMENT - POSSESSION - SECTION 11 AND 12 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - REGULARITY IN PAYMENT OF RENT - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY - EXPLANATION I TO SECTION 12 - SCOPE AND EFFECT - PAYMENT OF ARREARS BEFORE JUDGMENT - SUFFICIENCY - SECTION 12 (3) (B) - CONSTRUCTION - PROTECTION AGAINST FORFEITURE - CONDITIONS - REGULAR PAYMENT OF RENT - CONSOLIDATED PAYMENT JUST BEFORE JUDGMENT - INSUFFICIENCY - STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 12 - LANDLORD'S RIGHTS - PROTECTION - COSTS - AWARD TO LANDLORD IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant filed an application for fixation of standard rent under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act. The Court fixed interim rent and directed the tenant to deposit the arrears within 4 days. The tenant deposited the arrears but failed to make regular payments thereafter. The landlord filed suits for possession and arrears of rent. The tenant challenged the standard rent and the decrees for possession in the appellate court. The tenant also filed a revision application against the order fixing the standard rent. The appellate court allowed the appeals and decreed possession in favor of the landlord. The tenant filed special civil applications in the High Court challenging the decrees for possession and the order fixing the standard rent.
Finding of the Court:
The tenant failed to comply with the order of the Court to deposit the interim rent regularly. The tenant did not make any deposits for subsequent periods or seek suitable orders for fixing the interim rent. The tenant made irregular payments even after obtaining an interim rule and giving an undertaking to make regular deposits. The tenant's conduct showed that he was a contumacious defaulter.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant's failure to make regular payments of rent disentitled him to the protection of Section 12 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act? 2. Whether the tenant's payment of arrears just before the delivery of judgment was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Act? 3. Whether the Court could condone the tenant's delay in making payments and grant him relief against forfeiture?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 12 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act provides that a landlord is not entitled to recover possession of premises so long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases. Explanation I to Section 12 defines readiness and willingness to pay as making an application under Section 11 (3) of the Act and paying or tendering the amount of rent specified in the order made by the Court. 2. Section 12 (3) (b) of the Act provides that a tenant who raises a dispute about the standard rent is entitled to relief against forfeiture if he pays all the arrears due from him on the first day of hearing of the suit and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly the rent and the permitted increases till the suit is finally decided. 3. The tenant's failure to make regular payments of rent showed that he was not ready and willing to pay the standard rent as required by Section 12 (1) of the Act. The tenant's payment of arrears just before the delivery of judgment was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Act, as he had failed to make regular payments throughout the proceedings. 4. The Court could not condone the tenant's delay in making payments and grant him relief against forfeiture, as the tenant had shown a consistent pattern of default and had not taken any steps to rectify his defaults.
Final Decision: The tenant's applications were dismissed with costs.
2. Respondent No. 1 Dadamiya and other co-sharers brought three different suits in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, on 24-4-1968 against the present petitioner, a tenant, on three different premises forming part of the same property situate at Ahmednagar. Possession was claimed on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement, nuisance and default. The learned trial Judge rejected the claim for possession but made decrees for the arrears of rent claimed in the three respective suits. Against these decrees the landlord went in appeal to the District Court and the appeals were respectively numbered as 179, 181 and 184 of 1971. The learned District Judge, while maintaining the finding on the question of standard rent debated before the lower Court and the order for the arrears of rent, allowed the appeals and decreed possession in favour of the landlord, by his order dated 10-9-1971.
3. Before these three suits were instituted by the landlord for possession and arrears of rent, the tenant-petitioner had already preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 1966 on 7th November, 1966, for fixation of standard rent. On 2nd March, 1967, he moved the Court for fixation of interim rent and the lower Court by its order of even date fixed the interim rent for the three different premises at Rs. 4/-, 4/-, and 5/- respectively, as against the agreed rent of Rs. 10/-, 8/- and 10/-. This proceeding was heard as a companion proceeding to the three suits and evidence was recorded in the regular suits. The learned trial Judge concluded that the agreed rent would be the standard rent. This was the order made in Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 1966 also. Against this order the tenant preferred Civil Revision Application No. 6 of 1969. The learned District Judge, on confirming the findings of the lower Court on the issue of standard rent, rejected the same. Against. that decision in Civil Revision Application No. 6 of 1969. Special Civil Appln. No. 2792 of 1971 is filed. Thus it would be apparent that the tenant is impugning the order made by the learned District Judge in the application for fixation of standard rent and the three decrees obtained by the landlord in the different suits referred to above.
4. Before touching the various point urged, it would be quite necessary to refer to few facts which are mostly undisputed or otherwise may be taken as duly proved by the affidavits filed in this Court. No doubt, the tenant, probably forestalling some action on the part of the landlord, rushed to the Court with an application for fixation of standard rent under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act on 7th November, 1966. After four months he filed an application (Ex. 9) for fixation of interim rent on 2nd March, 1967 and the interim rent came to be fixed at Rs. 13/- in aggregate for the three premises in the above-said suits. While making this order the lower Court gave clear-cut directions to the tenant in the following words:
"The interim standard rent is fixed at Rs. 5/- per month of the open space (premises in Suit No. 181 of 1968) and interim standard rent of five Khans (premises in the remaining two suits) is fixed at Rs. 8/- p. m., pending the decision of the application. The applicant to deposit all the arrears of rent as per above rate within 4 days from today and should pay regularly as and when it falls due every month."
After this order was passed, the tenant did deposit Rs. 169/-, the arrears due till then, on 3rd March, 1967, i.e., within four days of the order as directed by the Court.
5. What happened thereafter is worthy of note. The tenant, it is the grievance of the landlords, - and they are right in their submissions - observed this order in breach so far as t
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
