Case Note & Summary
The revision application arises from a landlord-tenant dispute. The respondent-landlord filed RAE & R Suit No.9/21 of 1991 for eviction of the applicant-tenant on grounds of arrears of rent and unauthorized construction. The trial court decreed eviction on both grounds, and the appeal was dismissed. In revision, the tenant argued that she had complied with the trial court's order dated 5.3.1999 directing deposit of arrears of Rs.17,031.50 ps. by 10.6.1999 and to pay future rent regularly. She deposited the amount and continued to pay rent regularly. The appellate court held that interest on arrears was not paid as required under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. However, the High Court noted that the trial court's order did not mention interest, and the tenant complied fully. The court held that the benefit of doubt should go to the tenant, and the eviction decree on the ground of arrears could not be sustained. The revision application was allowed, and the eviction decree was set aside.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Section 12(3) Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Protection from eviction - Tenant complied with court order to deposit arrears of rent as directed, but order was silent on interest - Held that benefit of doubt should be given to tenant and eviction decree cannot be sustained (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant is entitled to protection from eviction under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, when she complied with the court's order to deposit arrears but the order did not specify payment of interest.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court and appellate court are set aside. The suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent is dismissed. The tenant is entitled to protection under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Law Points
- Section 12(3) Bombay Rent Act
- compliance with court order
- benefit of doubt to tenant
- arrears of rent
- interest on arrears
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 45
Civil Revision Application No. 561 of 2007
Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate, for the applicant; Mr. P.S. Dani, Advocate, for the respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against concurrent decrees of eviction passed by trial court and appellate court in a suit for recovery of possession on grounds of arrears of rent and unauthorized construction.
Remedy Sought
The applicant-tenant sought to set aside the eviction decree and be protected from eviction under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Filing Reason
The tenant failed to pay rent from 1.2.1986, leading to a notice of demand on 10.10.1990 and suit for eviction filed on 10.2.1991.
Previous Decisions
Trial court passed decree for eviction on grounds of arrears and unauthorized construction; appellate court dismissed appeal upholding the decree.
Issues
Whether the tenant complied with the requirements of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act to be protected from eviction.
Whether the tenant's failure to pay interest on arrears, when the court order did not specify interest, disentitles her from protection.
Submissions/Arguments
The tenant argued that she deposited all arrears as per court order dated 5.3.1999 and continued to pay rent regularly, thus satisfying Section 12(3).
The landlord argued that interest on arrears was not paid, and therefore the tenant did not comply with Section 12(3).
Ratio Decidendi
When a court orders deposit of arrears without specifying interest, and the tenant complies fully, the benefit of doubt should be given to the tenant. The tenant is deemed to have complied with Section 12(3) and is protected from eviction.
Judgment Excerpts
The said order was fully complied with. As the order was totally silent about interest and it did not indicate that interest was not included in the amount. The benefit of doubt on this count could be given to the tenant.
Procedural History
The landlord filed RAE & R Suit No.9/21 of 1991 for eviction. The trial court decreed eviction on 30.4.2004. The tenant appealed (Appeal No.169/2004), which was dismissed on 30.4.2007. The tenant then filed this Civil Revision Application No.561 of 2007, which was allowed on 28.4.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12(3)
