Bombay High Court Dismisses Landlord's Eviction Petition in Rent Control Case — Tenant's Application for Standard Rent Under Section 11(2) of Bombay Rent Act Protects Against Eviction for Arrears. The court held that a tenant who applies for standard rent before the suit is filed is not in default and cannot be evicted for arrears under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.

Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging concurrent dismissal of landlord's eviction suit.

The landlord (petitioner) sought eviction and possession of the suit premises from the tenant (respondent).

The landlord claimed the tenant was in arrears of rent from November 1986 to July 1988 and had made illegal construction of a cement platform.

The trial court (Civil Judge, Junior Division) dismissed Regular Civil Suit No.39 of 1989 on 27 March 1992. The appellate court (District Judge) dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.48 of 1992 on 13 December 1996, confirming the trial court's judgment.

Whether the tenant's application under Section 11(2) of the Bombay Rent Act for fixation of standard rent, filed after the eviction notice but before the suit, protects the tenant from eviction for arrears under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. Whether the tenant's deposit of arrears in court during the suit satisfies Section 12(3)(b) of the Act, further protecting the tenant from eviction.

The landlord argued that the tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent and had made illegal construction, warranting eviction. The tenant argued that he had applied for standard rent under Section 11(2) before the suit, and thus was not in default; also, he had deposited arrears in court.

A tenant who files an application under Section 11(2) of the Bombay Rent Act for fixation of standard rent before the institution of an eviction suit is not in default of payment of rent, and the landlord cannot seek eviction under Section 12(3)(a) for arrears accruing prior to the fixation of standard rent. The tenant's obligation to pay rent at the contractual rate is suspended pending the application. Additionally, deposit of arrears in court during the suit protects the tenant under Section 12(3)(b).

The landlord is before the Court, in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his eviction and possession suit instituted against the respondent/tenant as confirmed by the learned appellate judge. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the petitioner's tenant in respect of open space admeasuring 6 ft X 6 ft at Survey no.553 at Pen, District Raigad. The respondent by his Advocate's letter dated 3 September 1988 replied to the suit notice. There is vague reference sans details that the arrears of rent were forwarded by a money order at the rate of Rs.60/ per month and that money order was refused by the petitioner. on 5 November 1988 the respondent filed an application before the Civil Court under Section 11(2) of the Bombay Rent Act praying for fixing of the standard rent for the suit premises. Five months thereafter that is on 6 May 1989 the petitioner approached the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division by instituting the suit in question against the respondent, seeking a decree of eviction and possession of the suit premises.

The landlord issued a notice dated 25 August 1988 terminating tenancy for arrears and illegal construction. The tenant replied on 3 September 1988. On 5 November 1988, the tenant filed an application under Section 11(2) for standard rent. The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.39 of 1989 on 6 May 1989 for eviction. The trial court dismissed the suit on 27 March 1992. The landlord appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.48 of 1992, which was dismissed on 13 December 1996. The landlord then filed Writ Petition No.1992 of 1997 under Article 227, which was dismissed on 11 July 2017.

• Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act): Section 11(2), Section 12(3)(a), Section 12(3)(b)
• Constitution of India: Article 227