Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Laxman S/o. Ghulji Upadhye - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Vijay Bhojraj Khachne - Respondent
Writ Petition No.14000 of 2017, Civil Application No.273 of 2022
Decided on : 22-12-2022
Rent Act - Eviction - Section 12 - [NON-PAYMENT OF RENT] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 and held that failure to deposit the whole rent as required by the Act can result in eviction of the tenant. The court emphasized that mere readiness and willingness to pay rent by making a part deposit would not satisfy the requirements of Section 12(3) of the Act. The judgment of the Apex Court in Yusufbhai Noormohammed Jodhpurwala was cited to support the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 12(3) and the need for strict compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant failed to pay the entire rent as required by the Act, leading to a dispute with the landlords. The tenant claimed to have sent a money order and deposited an amount in the court, but the court found that the tenant did not pay the whole rent of Rs.75 per month, only a part of it at the rate of Rs.40 per month.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant did not comply with the requirements of Section 12(3) of the Rent Act, and therefore, the District Court's decree for eviction of the tenant was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant's partial payment of rent was sufficient to avoid eviction under Section 12 of the Rent Act. Additionally, the court considered the timing of the application for fixation of standard rent and its impact on the tenant's protection from eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Rent Act, requiring the tenant to deposit the whole rent and not just a part of it. The court also highlighted the importance of timely filing of the application for fixation of standard rent to claim protection from eviction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's petition challenging the District Court's judgment and upheld the decree for eviction. The tenant's request for continuation of protection from warrant of possession was also rejected.
JUDGMENT:
Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the District Judge-2, Bhusawal in Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 2014 thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhusawal dated 20.08.2007 in Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 1991. The District Judge has directed petitioner to vacate the suit premises.
2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under:
Petitioner is the tenant in respect of a block located at ground floor of the Municipal House No.1439 at Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are landlords in respect of the rented premises. The landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 1991 against the tenant for eviction on the ground that the tenant failed to pay rent for a period exceeding six months and that despite issuance of notice dated 01.01.1999, the tenant failed to pay the rent. Instead of paying the due rent, tenant filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.26 of 1991 for fixation of standard rent on 03.04.1991. The tenant also claims to have sent a money order dated 21.01.1991 for Rs.240/- towards rent from 01.07.1990 to 31.12.1990. In his application for fixation of standard rent being Civil Misc. Application No.26 of 1991, the tenant deposited amount of rent from 01.07.1990 onwards of Rs.480/- for the period from 01.07.1990 to 30.06.1991 on 04.04.1991.
3. The trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the landlords holding that the tenant deposited the amount of rent from 01.07.1990 to 30.06.1991 on 04.04.1991 and has thereafter continued to deposit the rent from time to time. The trial Court allowed C.M.A. No.26 of 1991 and fixed standard rent with taxes at Rs.75/- per month. The judgment and order dated 20.08.2007 came to be assailed by the landlords before the District Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 2014. The District Court held that the tenant had given admission that the monthly rent of the property was Rs.75/- and the rent claimed to have been sent by money order as well as the rent deposited in the trial Court was at the rate of Rs.40/- per month. It was also held that the tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent before first date of hearing and the application for fixation of standard rent was not filed within one month from the date of service of notice. It was also held that the rent was not deposited along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Holding that mere deposit of interim standard rent is not sufficient, the District Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed R.C.S. No.162 of 1991 directing tenant to vacate the suit premises within three months.
4. The tenant has filed present petition challenging the judgment and order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the District Judge-2, Bhusawal. During pendency of the present petition, the judgment of the District Court has not been stayed on account of which the landlords instituted proceedings for execution of the decree. Tenant has filed Civil Application No.273 of 2022 challenging the orders passed by the Executing Court. By order dated 07.12.2022, this Court directed that the warrant for possession shall not be executed. However instead of deciding the Civil Application, with the consent of the Ld. Counsels for the parties, this Court proceeded to hear the writ petition itself. Accordingly, the counsels for the parties have been heard extensively in the writ petition.
5. Mr. Surve, the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that till the determination of the standard rent by the trial Court, the agreed rent was Rs.40/- and that immediately upon receipt of notice by the landlords, the tenant filed application for fixation of standard rent on 04.04.1991. Before that, the tenant sent money order on 21.01.1991 for six monthly period from 01.07.1990 to 31.12.1990. He would further submit that the tenant had intention to pay the rent and therefore he deposited the entire rent in the trial Court for the period from 01.07.1990 to 30.06.1991 on 04.0
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Rent Act, requiring the tenant to deposit the whole rent and comply with the timing ....
A tenant in default for over six months without disputing the rent is subject to eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
A tenant must deposit all arrears of rent, including time-barred amounts, to claim protection from eviction under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sections 12(3)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act in a dispute over arrears of rent and unauthorized construction. The court's deci....
Tenant must comply with statutory deposit requirements under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, including interest and costs, to avoid eviction.
Valid service of notice is crucial for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act, and failure to pay rent after notice justifies eviction.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the requirement for the tenant to offer rent to the landlord before depositing it in Court.
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
