Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Arun Anant Tavkar, was a tenant of Flat No.3, Suyesh, Phirozshaw Mehta Road, Vile Parle (East), Bombay. The respondent, Smt. Suhas Yeshwant Narkar, was the landlord. There was a dispute between the parties regarding parking of a car in the building compound. By a notice dated 14th June 1985, the landlord demanded an increase in rent, which was received by the tenant on 5th July 1985. The tenant alleged that he sent rent for January and February 1985 through a money order on 19th June 1985, but the landlord redirected the money order to Assam in July 1985, and it was not accepted, returning in August 1985. The landlord then issued a demand notice for arrears of rent for six months from 1st January 1985 to 30th June 1985, which was duly served and acknowledged by the tenant on 5th July 1985. The tenant did not pay the arrears within one month of the notice. The landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision and decreed eviction. The tenant challenged the appellate order by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the tenant had not tendered the arrears within one month of the notice as required by Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The money order sent before the notice was for only two months and was not accepted. Therefore, the tenant was in default. The High Court found no perversity or error of law in the appellate court's decision and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 12 Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Eviction - The tenant failed to pay rent for six months from January to June 1985 despite a valid demand notice served on 5th July 1985. The tenant sent a money order on 19th June 1985 for January and February 1985 only, which was not accepted. The appellate court held that the tenant did not tender the arrears within one month of the notice as required under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, and therefore the tenant was liable for eviction. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, finding no perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-5)
B) Rent Control - Notice of Demand - Section 12 Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Compliance - The tenant's contention that the money order sent before the notice constituted valid tender was rejected because the money order was for only two months' rent and was not accepted by the landlord. The requirement under Section 12(3)(a) is that the tenant must pay or tender the entire arrears within one month of the receipt of the notice. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's order and granting eviction on the ground of default under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's decree of eviction. The court found no perversity or error of law in the appellate court's decision that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Default in payment of rent
- Section 12 Bombay Rent Act
- 1947
- Notice of demand
- Tender of rent within one month
- Eviction decree
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 163
Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1993 with Civil Application No. 1882 of 2005
Mr. Chetan Agarwal i/b V.T. Tulpule for the petitioner, Mr. R.N. Bhagatjee for the respondent
Smt. Suhas Yeshwant Narkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an appellate order of eviction on the ground of default under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner-tenant sought to challenge the judgment and order of the appellate court (Small Cause Court, Bandra Branch) dated 12th October 1993, which allowed the landlord's appeal and decreed eviction.
Filing Reason
The tenant failed to pay rent for six months from January to June 1985 despite a demand notice, and the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Small Cause Court) dismissed the eviction suit on 6th April 1992. The appellate court (Small Cause Court, Bandra Branch) allowed the appeal on 12th October 1993, setting aside the trial court's order and decreeing eviction.
Issues
Whether the tenant had tendered the arrears of rent within one month of the notice of demand as required under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947?
Whether the appellate court's finding of default was perverse or suffered from any error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner-tenant argued that he had sent a money order for January and February 1985 on 19th June 1985, before the notice of demand, and that the landlord had redirected it to Assam, which amounted to refusal.
The respondent-landlord contended that the money order was for only two months and was not accepted, and that the tenant failed to pay the entire arrears within one month of the notice dated 14th June 1985, which was served on 5th July 1985.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, a tenant must pay or tender the entire arrears of rent within one month of the receipt of a notice of demand from the landlord. A money order sent before the notice for part of the arrears, which is not accepted, does not constitute compliance. Failure to tender the arrears within the statutory period renders the tenant liable for eviction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby, sought to challenge a judgment and order passed in Appeal No. 94 of 1992 by Small Cause Court, Bandra Branch, dated 12th October, 1993, whereby, the appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the respondent-landlord and the judgment and order dated 6th April 1992, passed by the Small Cause Court (Trial Court) was set aside and granted the decree in favour of the respondent on the ground of default, as contemplated under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
The respondent thereafter, issued demand notice for the arrears of rent of six months, for the period from 1/1/1985 to 30/6/1985. The said demand notice was duly served and acknowledged by the petitioner on 5th July, 1985.
The appellate court has rightly held that the petitioner-tenant has not tendered the arrears of rent within one month of the notice as required under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Procedural History
The landlord filed an eviction suit on the ground of default under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The trial court dismissed the suit on 6th April 1992. The landlord appealed to the Small Cause Court, Bandra Branch, which allowed the appeal on 12th October 1993, decreeing eviction. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 12th August 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12
- Constitution of India: Article 227
