B. J. DIVAN, N. H. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenants revision application under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act challenging the decree passed against him in the regular civil suit no. 313 of 1971 of the court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Jetpur and confirmed in the appeal no. 17 of 1973 decided by the Assistant Judge of Rajkot District at Gondal. The tenant was ordered to be evicted from the rented premises namely a shop under sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that despite the service of a notice ex. 18 dated 7-10-1971 served on him on 8-10-71 calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent from 1-11-1970 to 30-9-1971 he had failed to pay the same within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand.

( 2 ) THIS revision application has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge of this court because it involved a question regarding the meaning of the term month occurring in sec. 12 (2) of the Rent act. Under the said provision no suit for possession could be instituted by a landlord against a tenant prior to the expire of one month next after the notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent has been served upon the tenant. Relying upon the judgment of another learned Single Judge of this court in the Civil Revision Application no. 712 of 1976 decided on 3 the petitioner tenant before this court had contended that the term month referred to in sec. 12 (2) would be a calendar month and as the suit in question had come to be filed on 22-11-71 before the expire of the next calendar month namely November 1971 suit was premature and therefore liable to be dismissed. On behalf of the tenant one another contention also was raised to the effect that the landlords case fell under sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act in so far as there was an invariable liability of the tenant to pay education cess by virtue of sec. 19 of the Gujarat Education Cess Act 1962 which cess is payable only annually and not monthly. In other words contention was that part of the rent being not payable by month one of the four requisites of sec. 12 (3) (a) was lacking and consequently the case fell under the alternative situation provided for by sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 3 ) THE view canvassed on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Suresh M. Shah the learned Advocate to put in the words of the learned Single Judge who decided the Civil Revision Application no. 712 of 1972 decided on 3 is as incorporated below from the judgment of the learned Single Judge himself:the expression one month used in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 12 read with sub-sec. (1) of sec. 12 in my opinion means a calendar month commencing from the first day of the month following the service of notice of demand upon the tenant. It does not mean an ordinary or usual month from the date of service of notice. WE are called upon to examine and decide this question namely what is meant by the term month occurring in sec. 12 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 4 ) IN common parlance the term month is hardly understood as a calendar month according to the Gregorian calendar but it by and large means space of time from a day in one month to the corresponding day in the next. This is the meaning of the term month given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary 1964 Edition. The term month has been explained also in the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 The term month as defined in sec. 2 (30) of the Bombay General Clauses Act means a month reckoned according to the British Calendar. The term reckoned is equivalent of the term calculated or counted. If the legislature wanted the month to mean only a compact unit of a calendar month the normal definition would have been as a British Calendar month or a calendar month. The elaborate explanation given in the definition of the term month and particularly the reference to calculation clearly and pointedly suggest that what is intended to be referred to by the term is a space of time between the two dates of the two contiguo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document