Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Madhu Manu Pawar and Sadhu Manu Pawar, were tenants of a premises owned by the respondent, Anand Mondo Mandawale. The respondent-landlord filed a suit for possession against the tenants, which was dismissed by the trial court (Civil Judge, J.D., Bhor) on 21/10/1988. The landlord appealed, and the Additional District Judge, Pune, reversed the trial court's order and passed a decree for possession on 27/3/1992. The tenants challenged this appellate decree by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The only issue raised in the writ petition was whether the tenants were in default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The court noted that the demand notice dated 4/7/1993 was unchallenged, no application for fixation of standard rent was filed within one month of the notice, and the arrears of rent as demanded were not paid within one month. The tenants' contention that they had deposited rent in court was rejected because the deposit did not satisfy the requirement of payment within one month of the demand notice. The court held that the tenants were in default under Section 12(3)(a) and dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - The issue was whether the tenants were in default under Section 12(3)(a) for non-payment of arrears within one month of demand notice. The court held that since the demand notice dated 4/7/1993 remained unchallenged, no application for standard rent was filed within one month, and arrears were not paid within one month, the tenants were in default. The deposit of rent in court did not cure the default. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners-tenants were in default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The judgment and decree for possession dated 27/3/1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune, is upheld.
Law Points
- Default in payment of rent under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act
- 1947
- deposit of rent in court does not cure default if not paid within one month of demand notice
- no application for standard rent fixation within one month of notice
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 197
Writ Petition No. 3202 of 1992
Mr. V. B. Rajure for the petitioners. None for the respondent.
Madhu Manu Pawar and Sadhu Manu Pawar
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 the judgment and decree for possession passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune, reversing the trial court's dismissal of the landlord's suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners-tenants sought to set aside the appellate decree for possession and restore the trial court's order dismissing the suit.
Filing Reason
The petitioners-tenants were aggrieved by the appellate court's decree for possession, claiming they were not in default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, J.D., Bhor) dismissed the landlord's suit on 21/10/1988. The appellate court (Additional District Judge, Pune) reversed that order and passed a decree for possession on 27/3/1992.
Issues
Whether the petitioners-tenants were in default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners-tenants argued that they had deposited rent in court, which should be considered as compliance with the demand notice.
The respondent-landlord contended that the demand notice was unchallenged, no application for standard rent was filed, and arrears were not paid within one month.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, a tenant is in default if he fails to pay arrears of rent within one month of a valid demand notice and does not apply for fixation of standard rent within that period. Deposit of rent in court does not cure the default if the payment is not made within the stipulated time.
Judgment Excerpts
The only issue that needs consideration in this writ petition is, whether the petitioners-tenants were in default in view of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents Hotel And Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.
There is no dispute that the arrears of rent, as demanded was not paid within one month.
Procedural History
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for possession against the petitioners-tenants. The trial court (Civil Judge, J.D., Bhor) dismissed the suit on 21/10/1988. The landlord appealed, and the Additional District Judge, Pune, reversed the trial court's order and passed a decree for possession on 27/3/1992. The tenants filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 7/7/2005.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947: 12(3)(a)
