GUJARAT STEEL TUBE CO. LTD. versus VIRCHANDBHAI B. SHAH AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 624 · Decided: 12-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GUJARAT STEEL TUBE CO. LTD. 
v. 
VIRCHANDBHAI B. SHAH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 1999 
B 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 
S.11 ( 4 }-Suit for eviction of tenant-Non-payment of renl---Application 
C by landlord u/s 11(4) for appropriate orders-Objection by tenant company 
contending that since a reference had been made to B.!.F.R. u/s. 15( 1) of Sick 
Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, in view of provisions of 
s.22 thereof no suit for recovery of money could be filed or proceedings taken 
against the tenant companyHeld, High Court and Appellate Bench of Small 
Causes Chief Court were right in holding that s.22 of Sick Industrial Com-
D panies (Special Provisions) Act did not prevent the filing of an eviction 
petition on the ground of non-payment of rent and order u/s. 11(4) of Bombay 
Rent Act could be passed-Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) 
Act, 198~S.22. 
E 
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Associa-
tion, [1992] 3 sec 1, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 14657 of 1999. 
F 
From the Judgment and order dated 20.8.99 of the Gujarat High 
Court in C.R.A. No. 1171of1999. 
Ranjit Kumar, H.A. Raichura and Ms. S.H. Raichura for the 
Petitioner. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner herein for 
eviction of the premises which had been let by the respondents to the 
petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Section 
11( 4) of the Bombay Rent Act was filed. In this application, it was stated 
H that the petitioner herein had not been paying the rent and, therefore, 
624 
GUJARAT STEEL TUBE CO. LTD. v. V.B. SHAH 
625 
appropriate orders as contemplated by the said sub-section should be A 
. passed. 
In the reply which was filed to the said application, it was, inter a/ia, 
contended that the petitioner company had become sick and a reference 
had been made to the B.I.F.R. under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial 
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"). The 
contention of the petitioner herein was_ that in view of the provisions of 
Section 22 of the Act no suit for recovery of money could be filed or 
proceeding taken against. the present petitioner. 
B 
The trial court vide its order dated 25th January, 1999 rejected the . C 
said application under Section 11( 4) which was filed by the respondent. 
Thereupon a revision was filed and the Appellate Bench of the Small 
Causes Chief Court, Ahmedabad by its order dated 12th July, 1999 came 
to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 22 of the Act were not 
applicable in such a case. It placed reliance on a decision of this Court in D 
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, 
[1992] 3 SCC 1. The petitioner thereafter filed a civil revision before the 
High Court but with no success. 
It is submitted by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the 
petitioner that in view of the plain language o~ Section 22 of the Act, the E 
application under Section 11( 4) of the Bombay Rent Act was not main-
tainable. He also contended that no notice as contemplated under Section 
12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act had been issued and, therefore, the question 
of an application under Section 11( 4) being filed could not arise. 
It is no doubt true that Section 12(2) requires a notice to be issued 
in the manner provided by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 
before a suit for recovery of possession on ground of non-payment of rent 
can be filed. This is an objection to the maintainability of the suit which 
F 
will have to be decided when the court takes up for consideration the 
question as to whether order for eviction should be passed or not. Not-
G 
withstanding this objection having been taken, an application under Section 
11( 4) can be filed. The said sub-section reads as follows : 
11. Court may fix standard rent and permitted increase in 
certain cases ....... . 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
xxxx 
xxxx 
xxxx 
( 4) Whether at any stage of a suit for recovery of rent, whether 
with or without a claim for possession of the premises, the Court 
is satisfied that the tenant is withholding the rent on the ground 
that. the rent is excessive and standard rent should be fixed, the 
court shall, in any other case if it appears to the Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.