Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original plaintiff-landlord Kachinath Rangnath Sonar (since deceased through his heir Gotiram Rangnath Sonar), filed a suit for eviction against the respondent-tenant Lakshman Ranoji Khapre (since deceased through his heirs) in respect of suit premises. The agreed monthly rent was Rs.20/- and the tenancy month ran from the 3rd of each English month to the 2nd of the following month. The landlord issued a notice of demand dated 22nd December 1982 demanding arrears of rent from 3rd November 1981. The tenant replied on 4th January 1982 denying arrears and filed an application for fixation of standard rent. The suit and the standard rent application were tried together. The trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the tenant was not in arrears for more than six months on the date of notice, but the dispute regarding standard rent was not bonafide, and fixed standard rent at Rs.20/- per month (the contractual rent). The trial Court held that Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 applied and ordered eviction. The tenant appealed to the District Court, which reversed the decree, holding that the dispute regarding standard rent was bonafide and the tenant was entitled to protection. The landlord then filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the tenant had not paid or deposited any rent after the notice, and the application for standard rent was filed only after the notice. The Court held that the tenant failed to prove that the dispute was bonafide. The High Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree of eviction. The Court emphasized that the burden is on the tenant to show bonafides, and mere filing of an application is insufficient. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bonafide Dispute of Standard Rent - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction for arrears of rent; tenant filed application for standard rent. Trial Court held dispute not bonafide and fixed standard rent at contractual rent. Appellate Court reversed, holding dispute bonafide. High Court restored trial court's decree, holding that tenant's failure to pay or deposit rent despite notice indicated lack of bonafides. (Paras 1-10)
B) Rent Control - Standard Rent - Burden of Proof - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - The tenant must prove that the dispute regarding standard rent was bonafide. Mere filing of application for standard rent does not automatically make the dispute bonafide; tenant must show reasonable grounds and willingness to pay rent as determined. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's dispute regarding standard rent was bonafide and whether the tenant was entitled to protection from eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and decree of the Joint District Judge dated 31st July 1992, and restored the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bonafide dispute of standard rent
- Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rent Act
- Eviction for arrears of rent
- Notice of demand
- Burden of proof on tenant
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 466
WRIT PETITION NO.4330 OF 1993
Mr. K.K. Malpathak for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Joshi for respondent nos.1 to 3
Kachinath Rangnath Sonar (since deceased through his heir Gotiram Rangnath Sonar)
Lakshman Ranoji Khapre (since deceased through his heirs: 1 Shantabai Laxman Khapre, 2 Arun Laxman Khapre, 3 Somnath Laxman Khapre, 4 Shobha Dnyaneshwar Gaikar, 5 Anita Ashok Aaher, 6 Sunita Balasaheb Kale)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging appellate judgment in a rent control eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (original plaintiff-landlord) sought to set aside the appellate judgment and restore the trial court's decree of eviction against the tenant.
Filing Reason
The appellate court reversed the trial court's eviction decree, holding that the tenant's dispute regarding standard rent was bonafide, whereas the landlord contended it was not.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act; District Court (Joint District Judge) reversed the decree on 31st July 1992.
Issues
Whether the tenant's dispute regarding standard rent was bonafide so as to protect him from eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's finding on bonafides.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner (landlord) argued that the tenant's application for standard rent was filed only after the notice of demand, and the tenant never paid or deposited any rent, indicating lack of bonafides.
Respondent (tenant) argued that the dispute regarding standard rent was bonafide and therefore the tenant was entitled to protection from eviction.
Ratio Decidendi
For a tenant to claim protection from eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of a bonafide dispute regarding standard rent, the tenant must not only raise the dispute but also demonstrate bonafides by paying or depositing the rent as determined or admitted. Mere filing of an application for standard rent after receipt of notice of demand, without any payment, does not constitute a bonafide dispute. The burden of proving bonafides lies on the tenant.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial Court held that though section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 the dispute raised by the respondent regarding standard rent was not bonafide and therefore, the standard rent was fixed at Rs.20/- per month which according to the petitioner was the contractual rent.
The appellate Court held that the dispute regarding standard rent was bonafide and therefore, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate Court has completely misread the evidence on record and has come to a perverse finding that the dispute regarding standard rent was bonafide.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction in the trial court. The trial court decreed the suit. The tenant appealed to the District Court (Joint District Judge), which reversed the decree on 31st July 1992. The landlord then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and allowed on 15th January 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947: 12(3)(a)
- Constitution of India: 227
