HARBANSLAL JAGMOHANDAS & ANR. versus PRABHUDAS SHIVLAL

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 628 · Decided: 12-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
628 
HARBANSLAL JAGMOHANDAS & ANR. 
v. 
PRABHUDAS SHIVLAL 
March 12, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents Hotel anti Lodging House J?ates Control Act 1947-Exp/a-
11ation I to s. 12-Sec. 11-12(3)(a)(b)-Whether a tenant must raise dispute 
as to standard rent within one month fron1 receipt of notice or whether can be 
raised in written statement. 
Both the appeals raise a common question as to whether a tenant in order 
to resist passing of a decree of eviction under the provisions contained 
in 
'· 12(3 )(a) of the Bombay Rent Act 1947 must dispute the standard rent with-
in one month from the date of receipt of the notice from the landlord termi-
nating the tenancy on the ground of arrears of rent or \Vhether a tenant can 
raise such a dispute in the written statement. The Gujarat High Court toot a 
view that the dispute as to standard rent has to be raised within one month 
from the service of the notice on the tenant. The Bombay High Court ha,, 
taken a contrary view and held that the tenant can raise a dispute as to stand-
ard rent in his written statement in answer to the suit and in such a case the 
provisions of s. 12(3) (a) of the Act will apply. 
Jn the Gujarat case. the 
High Court found that the tenant did not raise the dispute within one montll 
of the service of the notice terminating the tenancy inter alia, on the ground 
of arrears of rent for more than 6 months. In the Bombay appeal the dispu1c 
was not raised within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice. It 
was, however, raised in the written statement. Under s. 11 of the Act. the court 
has power to determine standard rent when there is a dispute between the land-
lord and tenant regarding the amount of standard rent. 
1-IELD: (1) Under s. 12 of the Act the landlord is not entitled to recover 
possession of the premises so long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to 
pay the amount of standnrd rent and !Jermitted increases. 
Section 12(2) pro-
vides that no suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord 
against a tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent. until the 
expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the payment of 
the 
standard rent. 
Section 12(3) (a) provides for passing a decree for cvictiOn of 
the tenant is in arrears for a period of 6 months and neglects to make t_he 
payment after the expiration of the notice period provided there is no dispute 
regarding the amount of standard rent. Clause 12(3)fa) provides that in any 
other. case no decree for eviction should be pac;sed if the tenant pays or tender« 
in the court the standard rent and permitted increases which is due and there-
after continues to pay or tender in court regular1y such rent till the suit is-
finally decided. 
Explanation I to s. 12 provides that where there is a dispute 
as to the amount of standard rent or permitted increases recoverable under 
this Act the tenant shall be deemed to be ready and wi11ing to pay such amount 
if before the expiry of the period of one month from the receipt of the notice 
he makes an application under s. 11 for the fixation of the t'ltandard rent and 
thereafter pays the rent fixed by the Court. [632-B, GJ 
(2) The Bqmbay High Court view overlookc; the limitation of time within 
which a dispute is to be raised as to standard rent. 
The view of the Bombay 
High Court that dispute within one month of the service of the notice terminatin• 
the tenancv is one mode of raisin):! a dispute and there i<i nnother mode of 
raising the -dispute at anv stage of the suit. nullifies the provisions contained in 
s. 12 and explanation thereto and confers a right on the tenant where the 
1ea:is1ation does not contemplate such right. The provisions in s. 11 (3) of the 
Act deal with orders which may be passed by the court during the pendency 
of the application disputing the rent. Provisions of s. 11 ( 4) of the Act deal 
with orders \vhich may be passed consequent upon dispute as to rent. It 
is 
• 
• 
HARBANSLAL v. PRABHUDAS (Ray, C.J.) 
629 
only when a~ application disputing the rent fa made wit~i.~ the time cont~m-
A 
plated by Explanation I to s. 12 of the Act that the provisions on sub-secttona 
(3) and (4) of s. 11 are attracted. [635F-H, 636AJ 
" 
CIVIL APPELLA:rE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1971. 
• 
• 
• 
Appeal by special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
22-U-70 of the Gujarat High Court in C.R.A. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.