Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Petition in Rent Default Eviction Case — Appellate Court's Decree Upheld. Tenant's deposit of rent in court without intimation to landlord and failure to pay demanded rent after notice constituted default under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 324
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a dispute between landlords (Respondents) and a tenant (Petitioner) over eviction from two rooms on the ground floor of a house property in Pune. The landlords filed Civil Suit No. 613 of 1985 seeking possession on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). The tenant had been in arrears since 1 August 1971, and the landlords issued a notice dated 7 January 1985 demanding arrears of Rs. 563.60 after adjusting deposits made in court. The tenant did not pay the demanded amount within one month. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the landlords failed to prove default under Section 12(2). The landlords appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed the decision, decreeing eviction under Section 12(3)(b). The tenant filed a writ petition challenging the Appellate Court's decree. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the tenant had deposited rent in court on three occasions in 1983 and 1984, but without intimation to the landlords. The Court held that such deposits do not constitute payment to the landlord and that the tenant's failure to pay the rent demanded within one month of the notice constituted default under Section 12(3)(b). The Court also rejected the tenant's argument that filing an application for fixation of standard rent provided protection, as the tenant did not dispute the quantum of rent demanded. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the eviction decree.

Headnote

A) Rent Control - Eviction on Ground of Default - Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Tenant's deposit of rent in court without intimation to landlord does not constitute valid payment - The Appellate Court correctly held that mere deposit of rent in court, without notice to the landlord, cannot be treated as payment of rent to the landlord for the purpose of defeating a suit for eviction on the ground of default. The tenant's failure to pay or tender the rent demanded within one month of the notice resulted in forfeiture of protection under Section 12(3)(b). (Paras 10-14)

B) Rent Control - Standard Rent - Application for Fixation - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Filing of application for fixation of standard rent does not automatically protect tenant from eviction if rent demanded is not disputed - The tenant filed a fresh application for fixation of standard rent after the previous fixation at Rs. 8.60/-. However, the tenant did not dispute the quantum of rent demanded in the notice. The Appellate Court held that the tenant was not entitled to protection under Explanation I of Section 12 as the tenant failed to pay or deposit the rent as required. (Paras 15-16)

C) Rent Control - Notice of Demand - Validity - Section 12(2) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Notice demanding arrears of rent for more than six months is valid if tenant fails to pay within one month - The tenant argued that the notice was invalid because the arrears exceeded six months. The Court held that the notice is valid under Section 12(2) and the tenant's failure to pay within one month of the notice attracts Section 12(3)(b). The tenant's deposit of rent in court prior to the notice did not cure the default. (Paras 10-14)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellate Court was justified in decreeing eviction on ground of default in payment of rent under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, and whether the tenant's deposit of rent in court and filing of application for fixation of standard rent absolved her of default.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Appellate Court's decree dated 20 January 1996, which directed the tenant to hand over possession of the suit premises to the landlords within six months.

Law Points

  • Default in payment of rent
  • Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rent Act
  • deposit of rent in court not equivalent to payment to landlord
  • requirement of intimation to landlord
  • filing of application for fixation of standard rent does not automatically protect tenant from eviction
  • notice demanding rent need not be preceded by six months arrears if tenant fails to pay within one month of notice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 97

Writ Petition No. 3751 of 1996

2024-08-09

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

2024:BHC-AS:32960

Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar for the Petitioners, Mr. N.C. Walimbe for the Respondents

Smt. Sakhubai Baburao Kadam (since deceased through legal heirs) and others

Shri. Sudhakar Sambhaji Kadam (deceased) and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging appellate decree of eviction on ground of default in payment of rent.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners (tenants) sought to set aside the appellate decree directing eviction and possession of suit premises to respondents (landlords).

Filing Reason

Petitioners were aggrieved by the appellate court's decree reversing the trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit and ordering eviction.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 613/1985 on 1 October 1992; Appellate Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 550/1992 on 20 January 1996, decreeing eviction.

Issues

Whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decree and ordering eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Whether the tenant's deposit of rent in court without intimation to the landlord constituted valid payment to defeat the eviction suit. Whether the tenant's filing of an application for fixation of standard rent provided protection against eviction under Explanation I of Section 12.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that there was no default as rent was deposited in court, the notice was faulty as arrears exceeded six months, and filing of standard rent application provided protection. Respondents argued that deposit in court without intimation is not payment, the notice was valid, and the tenant failed to pay within one month, thus default was established.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, a tenant who fails to pay or tender the rent demanded in a valid notice within one month of its receipt is liable for eviction. Deposit of rent in court without intimation to the landlord does not constitute payment to the landlord. Filing an application for fixation of standard rent does not automatically protect the tenant if the rent demanded is not disputed and the tenant fails to pay.

Judgment Excerpts

Courts are not a clearing house in the matter of payment of rent or an agent between landlord and tenant. The tenant's deposit of rent in court without intimation to the landlord cannot be treated as payment of rent to the landlord for the purpose of defeating a suit for eviction on the ground of default.

Procedural History

The landlords filed Civil Suit No. 613/1985 in the Small Causes Court, Pune, for eviction on ground of default. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 1 October 1992. The landlords appealed to the District Court, Pune, which allowed Civil Appeal No. 550/1992 on 20 January 1996, decreeing eviction. The tenant filed Writ Petition No. 3751/1996 in the Bombay High Court, which was admitted on 24 July 1996 with a stay of the appellate decree. The High Court dismissed the petition on 9 August 2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12, Section 12(2), Section 12(3), Section 12(3)(a), Section 12(3)(b)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Petition in Rent Default Eviction Case — Appellate Court's Decree Upheld. Tenant's deposit of rent in court without intimation to landlord and failure to pay demanded rent after notice constituted default under ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal by Union of India, Sets Aside High Court's Interim Stay on Transfer of Customs Officer. High Court's Interference with Transfer Order Was in Excess of Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution Without Prima Facie ...