Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Laxman s/o Ghulji Upadhye, was a tenant in a block of Municipal House No.1439 at Bhusawal, Jalgaon. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the landlords. The landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 1991 for eviction on the ground that the tenant failed to pay rent for over six months despite a notice dated 01.01.1999. The tenant, instead of paying the due rent, filed Civil Misc. Application No.26 of 1991 for fixation of standard rent on 03.04.1991, and deposited Rs.480/- as rent from 01.07.1990 to 30.06.1991 on 04.04.1991. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the tenant had deposited the rent before the first hearing and continued to deposit rent, and fixed standard rent at Rs.75/- per month. The landlords appealed to the District Court, which reversed the trial court's decision and ordered eviction, holding that the tenant had admitted the rent was Rs.75/- but deposited only Rs.40/- per month, and had not deposited arrears before the first hearing. The tenant challenged this in the High Court. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and held that the tenant's deposit of rent in the standard rent proceedings before the first hearing of the suit constituted compliance with the section. The court noted that the tenant had deposited the arrears at the rate of Rs.40/- per month, which was the rate claimed by him, and that the landlords had refused the money order. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate decree, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit, thereby protecting the tenant from eviction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Deposit of Rent Before First Hearing - Tenant deposited arrears of rent at Rs.40/- per month in standard rent application before first hearing of eviction suit - Trial Court dismissed suit, Appellate Court reversed - High Court held that deposit before first hearing is sufficient compliance, even if at disputed rate, and tenant cannot be evicted - Held that the tenant's deposit in the standard rent proceedings before the first hearing of the suit satisfies the requirement of Section 12(3)(b) (Paras 8-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's deposit of rent at the rate of Rs.40/- per month in the standard rent proceedings before the first hearing of the eviction suit constitutes compliance with Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, thereby protecting him from eviction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the District Judge-2, Bhusawal in Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 2014, and restored the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2007 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhusawal in Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 1991, thereby dismissing the landlords' suit for eviction.
Law Points
- Eviction decree cannot be passed if tenant deposits arrears of rent before first hearing of the suit
- even if deposit is at disputed rate
- Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- tenant's application for standard rent does not constitute default
- deposit in standard rent proceedings is valid compliance
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 19
Writ Petition No.14000 of 2017 with Civil Application No.273 of 2022
Mr. Hemant Surve for Petitioner, Mr. S.B. Yawalkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Laxman s/o. Ghulji Upadhye
Dr. Vijay Bhojraj Khachne, Dilip Bhojraj Khachne, Vasant Bhojraj Khachne, Vijay s/o Rameshwar Agrawal, Shashikant s/o. Jethalal Mehta, Kapil s/o. Shashikant Mehta
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging appellate decree of eviction in a landlord-tenant dispute.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (tenant) sought to set aside the appellate judgment and order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the District Judge-2, Bhusawal in Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 2014, which directed eviction.
Filing Reason
The tenant challenged the appellate decree on the ground that he had deposited the arrears of rent before the first hearing of the suit, thus complying with Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents Act.
Previous Decisions
The trial Court (Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhusawal) dismissed the eviction suit on 20.08.2007 in Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 1991. The District Court reversed that decision on 12.08.2015 in Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 2014, ordering eviction.
Issues
Whether the tenant's deposit of rent at Rs.40/- per month in the standard rent application before the first hearing of the eviction suit constitutes compliance with Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents Act.
Whether the tenant's failure to deposit rent at the admitted rate of Rs.75/- per month before the first hearing disentitles him to protection from eviction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner (tenant) argued that he deposited the arrears of rent before the first hearing of the suit in the standard rent proceedings, which is sufficient compliance under Section 12(3)(b).
Respondents (landlords) argued that the tenant admitted the rent was Rs.75/- per month but deposited only Rs.40/- per month, and did not deposit the arrears before the first hearing, thus failing to comply with Section 12(3)(b).
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, a tenant is protected from eviction if he deposits the arrears of rent before the first hearing of the suit. The deposit made in the standard rent proceedings before the first hearing constitutes valid compliance, even if the deposit is at a rate disputed by the landlord. The tenant's application for standard rent does not amount to default, and the deposit in those proceedings satisfies the statutory requirement.
Judgment Excerpts
The District Judge has directed petitioner to vacate the suit premises.
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 tenant had deposited the arrears of rent before the first date of hearing and therefore the tenant is entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Procedural History
Landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 1991 for eviction. Tenant filed Civil Misc. Application No.26 of 1991 for standard rent on 03.04.1991 and deposited rent on 04.04.1991. Trial Court dismissed the suit on 20.08.2007. Landlords appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 2014, which was allowed on 12.08.2015, ordering eviction. Tenant filed Writ Petition No.14000 of 2017 in the High Court, which was allowed on 22.12.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12(3)(b)
