The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition by the legal representatives of the tenant challenging the eviction order. The court ruled that the tenant’s failure to pay rent arrears from October 1972 to March 1982, combined with non-payment even after receiving a notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, invoked the automatic eviction provision under Section 12(3)(a). The tenant’s contention of willingness to pay did not suffice since the arrears exceeded six months and the tenant did not raise any dispute about the rent.

Introduction:

• Petitioner: Sudhir Kumar Sengupta (since deceased, represented by heirs).
• Respondent: Mrs. Kusum Pandurang Keni (original landlord).
• Court: High Court of Bombay, presided by Justice Sandeep V. Marne.
• Context: Writ petition challenges the eviction order based on non-payment of rent under the Bombay Rent Act.

Facts of the Case:

1. Background:

   • The tenant, Sudhir Kumar Sengupta, had been in arrears of rent, water pump charges, and permitted increases since October 1972.
   • The plaintiff (landlord) served a notice on March 22, 1982, demanding payment, which the tenant failed to honor.
   • The landlord filed a suit for possession and arrears in 1983 under the Bombay Rent Act.

2. Trial Court Decision (1995):

   • The Small Causes Court dismissed the eviction suit, acknowledging that the tenant was willing to pay the arrears.
   • The tenant had deposited the arrears during the suit proceedings but argued no receipt of the demand notice.

3. Appellate Court Reversal (1999):

   • The Appellate Bench reversed the decision, holding the tenant in default of rent payments for more than six months, invoking Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, which mandates eviction in such cases.

Legal Arguments:

4. Petitioner's Argument:

   • Counsel for the petitioner argued that the case should fall under Section 12(3)(b) since the tenant was willing to pay arrears, and thus the eviction should not have been ordered.

5. Respondent's Argument:

   • Counsel for the respondent maintained that Section 12(3)(a) was applicable, given the arrears exceeded six months, and the tenant had not raised any rent dispute or made timely payments, making eviction mandatory.

Court’s Findings:

6. Application of Section 12(3)(a):

   • The court noted that the tenant was in arrears for over six months, rent was payable by the month, and there was no dispute regarding the rent amount.
   • The tenant did not file for rent fixation under Section 11, thus failing to avoid the statutory consequences of Section 12(3)(a), which mandates eviction without court discretion if the tenant neglects to pay within the prescribed period.

7. Judgment:

   • The High Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision to evict the tenant, ruling that Section 12(3)(a) leaves no room for discretion once the conditions for arrears and non-payment after notice are met.
   • The court dismissed the petition, granting the tenant three months to vacate the premises.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Bombay Rent Act, 1947:
  • Section 12(2): Requires the landlord to serve a demand notice for arrears.
  • Section 12(3)(a): Mandates eviction if the tenant fails to pay arrears exceeding six months within one month of receiving notice.
  • Section 12(3)(b): Offers tenants a chance to avoid eviction by depositing arrears before the first hearing, but only if the case doesn’t meet the Section 12(3)(a) criteria.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court’s interpretation emphasized that once a tenant fails to pay rent for over six months, and no dispute regarding rent or its quantum exists, the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) automatically apply, leaving no discretion to avoid eviction. The tenant's willingness to pay at a later stage or deposit during proceedings does not nullify the mandatory eviction clause if payments weren’t made within the statutory period.

Subjects:

Eviction, Bombay Rent Act, Rent Arrears, Tenant Rights, Section 12(3)(a), Mumbai Property