Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an eviction suit filed by the original landlady, Shantabai, predecessor in interest of the respondents, against the appellants-tenants under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit premises were rented for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs.70/-, later increased to Rs.80/-. The landlady served a notice dated July 28, 1972 terminating tenancy on grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement. The notice mentioned arrears of rent from April 1, 1971. The tenants sent a money order for Rs.400/- on September 1, 1972, and another for Rs.500/- on October 4, 1972, but the landlady refused to accept both. The trial court rejected the bona fide requirement but held that the landlady's case fell under Section 12(3)(b) and decreed eviction. The appellate court reversed, holding that the landlady had failed to prove neglect for more than six months and that neither Section 12(3)(a) nor Section 12(3)(b) was attracted. During the appeal, the original landlady died and her legal heirs were brought on record. The heirs then filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and held that the tenants had neglected to make payment under Section 12(3)(a) and were liable to be evicted, thereby setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The tenants appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the tenants had neglected to make payment within the meaning of Section 12(3)(a) when they sent a money order within one month after the notice under Section 12(2), and whether the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 by reviewing findings of fact like an appellate court. The appellants contended that sending the money order within the prescribed period showed no neglect, while the respondents argued that actual receipt of the arrears by the landlady within that period was necessary. The Supreme Court examined Section 12(3)(a) and held that the sine qua non for eviction is 'neglect to make payment', not the actual making or receipt of payment. The expression 'neglect' means to fail to give due care, attention, or time, or to fail through thoughtlessness or carelessness. Since the first money order was sent on September 1, 1972, within one month of the notice received on August 1, 1972, the tenants could not be said to have neglected to make payment. The Court further held that the High Court had fallen into patent error by reassessing evidence and extending its jurisdiction under Article 227, which is meant only for grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the appellate court's judgment. No costs were awarded. The Court also noted that the tenants had been paying Rs.80/- per month as rent since 1980 and directed them to pay Rs.600/- as rent with effect from September 1, 1995.
Headnote
A) Rent Control and Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Neglect to Make Payment - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Sections 12(2), 12(3)(a), 12(3)(b) - The tenant sent a money order for arrears within one month after receipt of the statutory notice under Section 12(2); the landlord refused to accept it. The Court held that the sine qua non for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) is 'neglect to make payment', not actual making or receipt of payment. Sending the money order within the specified period did not constitute neglect; hence neither Section 12(3)(a) nor Section 12(3)(b) was attracted. Held that the High Court erred in holding otherwise. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope of Article 227 - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court converted itself into an appellate court and reappreciated all issues decided by the two courts below. The Supreme Court observed that the Act is a special legislation and the legislature did not provide for second appeal or revision to the High Court. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Held that the High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction in the present case. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenants neglected to make payment of arrears of rent within one month after notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 so as to attract Section 12(3)(a), and whether the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by reappreciating evidence and reversing the appellate court's findings.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the judgment of the appellate court. No costs were awarded. The Court directed the appellants to pay rent at Rs.600/- per month with effect from September 1, 1995.
Law Points
- Landlord shall not be entitled to recover possession if tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases
- No suit for recovery of possession on ground of non-payment until expiration of one month after notice under Section 12(2)
- Section 12(3)(a) requires neglect to make payment
- not actual receipt of payment
- Sending money order within one month after notice under Section 12(2) shows no neglect to make payment
- High Court under Article 227 cannot reappreciate evidence or act as appellate court
- Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 limited to grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice
