LexCHASE BRIGHT STEEL LTD. versus SHANTARAM SHANKAR SAWANT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_, CHASE BRIGHT STEEL LTD. A v. SHANTARAM SHANKAR SAWANT AND ANR. MARCH 2, 1994 [S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.) B , Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947: Sections 11(3), 12(2) and 12(3)(b)-Permitteil increases not paid by tenant-l.andlord issuing demand notice for payment of arrears-Tenant filing application for fixing standard rent-Interim rent fixed and tenant depositing c rent in Court but not the permitted increases-Eviction petition filed by landlord-Permitted increases-Whether payable month/y-4'alidity of the demand notice-Maintainability of the suit. The appellant-company has been the lessee of the suit premises since D 1963 though the property changed many hands. In 1975 respondents ., purchased the property, and the appellant continued as lessee and was paying rent and taxes at the rate of Rs,358.211 p.m. In 1m the respondents Issued a notice through their lawyer to the appellant terminating its tenancy and calling upon the appellant to hand over vacant possession as the appellant was in arrears of permitted E Increases amounting to Rs.5650 from Feburary, 1976. The notice also specified two of the grounds of eviction, viz. that the appellant had altered the premises and causing nuisance to the neighbours. Thereupon the appellant filed an application u/s. 11 (3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for fixation of standard rent. An F interim order was passed fixing the rent at Rs. 358 p.m. The appellant paid the interim rent to the respondent for four months and the respondents accepted the same. Thereafter appellant has been depositing the rent in Court. In 1979 respondents filed a suit for arrears of permitted increases, G rent and for possession. It was claimed that the permitted increases at the - rate of Rs. 56.SO p.m. since 1976 were not paid. Grounds for eviction viz. ' unauthorised alteration and creating nuisance were also urged. In 1981, the 11pplicatlon for fixation ofstandard rent was dismissed H 287 I , 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R. A in default tor non-appearance. This was noted by the Advocate only in ,_ 1985. However, the appellant had been depositing the Interim standard rent all along. Defending the suits the appellant pleaded that it was paying the rent B regularly and there was no arrears. It also denied the other grounds, viz., unauthorised construction and causing nuisance to the neighbours. The Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on account of arrears of rent but not permitted increases. t The appellant preferred and appeal and It was dismissed. There- c after, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition and the High Court dis- missed the same, holding that the appellant was not in arrears of rent, but had defaulted In payment of permitted increases. Hence the appeal by the appellant-tenant. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that there was no valid D notice of demand which 'was a condition precedent for the maintainability of suit; that the respondent could not recover permitted increases until be < bad paid the same and that the Interim rent f1Xed bad been regularly paid throughout the pendency of the suit and appeal. The Respondents contended that when the notice was issued calling E upon the appellant to pay the entire arrears, all the charges which were permissible increases were part of the rent required to be paid; and that since there was a valid demand the maintainability of the suit could not be questioned. F Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. No doubt there must be valid demand for maintainability of suit for arrears of rent or permitted Increases. But the notice clearly stated that the tenant was supposed to pay Rs.56.50 per month as permitted increases. Though the word 'supposed' bas been used Incorrectly, it does G not in any way affect the validity of the notice. Besides, merely because the notice stated 'arrears of rent' It does not mean that there was no demand for permitted increases as part of the rent. Also, the tenant never disputed the payment of municipal taxes by the landlord. [293-E; 294-F) . . _Chiman Lal v. Mishrilal, [1985) 2 SCR 39 and R.K Shetty v. R.P. H Shirole, (1991] 1 SCC 570, distingufsbed. CHASEBRIGHTSTEELLTD. v.SAWANT [MOHAN.J.] 289 2. There is no demur to the proposition that the perinited increases, A ·though part of rent, is not payable monthly. The plaint clearly stated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.