Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Rent Act) filed by the tenant against a common judgment and decree dated 29.03.2004 in Regular Civil Appeal No.27 of 2003, which confirmed the decree of eviction passed in Regular Civil Suit No.262 of 1995 dated 06.02.2003. The appellant is the original tenant, and the respondent is the original landlord. The landlord purchased the residential premises situated in Hethan Faliya area of Junagadh district by registered sale deed on 11.05.1995 with the right to recover arrears of rent from 01.05.1989. The premises, consisting of ground floor with two rooms, open space, court yard, kitchen, and wash room, were rented to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The previous owner had issued a notice on 30.04.1993 demanding arrears, but the tenant did not pay. After purchase, the landlord issued a notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act on 22.07.1995 demanding arrears from 01.05.1989 and taxes, which was served on 27.07.1995. The tenant failed to pay within one month, leading to the suit for eviction. The trial court decreed eviction, and the appellate court confirmed. The High Court framed the issue of whether the tenant's default attracts Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. The tenant argued that the notice was not valid as it did not specify the exact amount and that the landlord had no right to recover arrears prior to purchase. The landlord contended that the notice was proper and the tenant was in default. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 12(2) and 12(3)(a) and held that the tenant's failure to pay rent within one month of the notice is a clear default, and the courts below correctly decreed eviction. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Arrears of Rent - Section 12(2) and 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord purchased premises with right to recover arrears from 01.05.1989 - Tenant failed to pay rent despite notice under Section 12(2) - Courts below decreed eviction - Held that tenant's default in payment of rent within one month of notice attracts Section 12(3)(a) and eviction is justified (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's failure to pay arrears of rent despite notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act justifies eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, confirming the eviction decree passed by the courts below. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 12(2) of Bombay Rent Act
- Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act
- Section 29(2) of Bombay Rent Act
- Rent control
- Arrears of rent
- Notice demanding rent
- Default in payment
- Eviction decree
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 73
R/Civil Revision Application No. 221 of 2004
Mr. Vishal C Mehta for the applicant(s), Mr. Harichandra K Barot for the opponent(s)
Vaikunthrai Ramnikrai Vasavda Since Deceased Through His Heirs & Ors.
Kasturben Dayalal Pandya (Deceased Through Legal Heirs) & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act against concurrent findings of eviction for arrears of rent.
Remedy Sought
Tenant sought to set aside the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
Tenant failed to pay arrears of rent from 01.05.1989 despite notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act, leading to suit for eviction.
Previous Decisions
Regular Civil Suit No.262 of 1995 decreed eviction on 06.02.2003; Regular Civil Appeal No.27 of 2003 with Cross Objection dismissed on 29.03.2004, confirming the decree.
Issues
Whether the notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act was valid and properly served.
Whether the tenant's failure to pay arrears within one month of notice attracts Section 12(3)(a) of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Tenant argued that the notice did not specify the exact amount of arrears and that the landlord had no right to recover arrears prior to purchase.
Landlord contended that the notice was valid and the tenant was in default, justifying eviction under Section 12(3)(a).
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, if a tenant fails to pay arrears of rent within one month of a valid notice under Section 12(2), the landlord is entitled to a decree for eviction. The tenant's default is established regardless of the landlord's right to recover arrears prior to purchase, as the notice validly demanded the arrears.
Judgment Excerpts
This Revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (for short 'the Rent Act') stem from common judgment and decree delivered on 29.03.2004 in Regular Civil Appeal No.27 of 2003 with Cross Objection, both of which came to be dismissed, in turn confirming judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.262 of 1995 dated 06.02.2003.
Notice under section 12(2) of the Rent Act was sent by landlord to tenant demanding arrears of rent due from 01.05.1989 and also local and municipal tax, water tax, education tax etc.
Procedural History
The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.262 of 1995 for eviction, which was decreed on 06.02.2003. The tenant appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.27 of 2003 with Cross Objection, which was dismissed on 29.03.2004. The tenant then filed this civil revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12(2), Section 12(3)(a), Section 29(2)
