JAYWANT S. KULKARNI & ORS. versus MLNOCHAR DOSABHAI SHROFF & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 09-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
I 
B 
c 
JAYWANT S. KULKARNI & ORS. 
v. 
MlNOCHAR DOSABHAI SHROFF & ORS. 
AUGUST .9, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ, SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND 
L.M. SHARMA,JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 
1947: S. 12-Tenant in arrears of rent for six months or more-Failure 
to pay within one month from notice-Dispute regarding standard rent 
not raised-Eviction-Held valid. 
Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House 
Rates Control Act, 1947 bars suits for recovery of possession against the 
tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent until the 
0 
expiration of one month next after notice in writing. Section 12(3)(a) 
provides for passing of a decree for eviction of the tenant who is in 
arrears for a period of six months and neglects to make payment until 
the expiration of the notice period provided there is no dispute regard-
ing the standard rent. Section 12(3)(b) interdicts passing of the decree if 
the ienant pays or renders in the court the standard rent and permitted 
E 
increases then due. 
F 
The appellants were served with a notice under s. 12(2) of the Act 
terminating the tenancy and calling upon them to pay arrears of rent 
from 1st September, 1971to31st December, 1972. They did not pay the 
amount claimed. No dispute was raised regarding the standard rent. 
The trial court and the appellate court came to. the conclusion that 
there was neglect on the part of the appellants within the meaning of 
s. 12(3)(a) of the Act meriting a decree for eviction. The High C<JUrt 
dismissed the appeal. 
In the appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellants 
G 
that the landlord was not granting receipts, that he was not demanding 
rent but compensation for use and oecupation, that the landlord was 
acting mala fide and preventing the tenariti'rom performing his obliga-
tion, that this was not a case of bona-fide need and that the landlord 
was affiuent and the tenant was poor. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
296 
J.S. KULKARNI v. M.D. SHROFF 
297 
HELD: l.l In view of the provisions of s. 12(3)(a) and (b) of the 
Act and in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, 
the courts below were right. The eviction order bad to follow by opera-
tion oflaw. [301H-D] 
l.2 Sub-section 3(a) of s. 12 categorically provided that where the 
rent was payable by the month and there was no dispute regarding the 
amount .. of standard rent or permitted increases, if such rent or 
increases were in arrears for a period of six months or more and 
th~ tenant neglected to make payment thereof until the expiration of 
the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-s. (2), the court 
shall pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of 
possession. [301B] 
l.3 In the instant case, the rent was payable month by month. 
There was no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permit-
ted increases. Such rent or increases were in arrears for a period of six 
months or more. The tenant had neglected to make payment until the 
expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-s. 
(2). The court was bound to pass a decree for eviction in any such suit 
for recovery of possession. [301C) 
· 
Harbanslal Jagmohandas & Anr. v. Prabhudas Shiv/al, [1976) 3 
SCR. 628 referred to. 
Mohan Laxman Hede v. Noormohamed Adam Shaikh. AIR 1988 
SC. 1111 distinguished. 
2. The expression "court shall pass a decree" in sub-s. 3(a) of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
s. 12 was substituted for the words "court may pass a decree" by an 
amendment passed in 1963, making it mandatory to pass the decree. 
F 
When the legislature has made its intention clear in specific terms, there 
was no scope for appeal to the "spirit of the law" and not to the strict 
letter of the law. [302C-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 258 
of 1982. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.1981 of the Bombay 
High Court in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 2598 of 1978. 
-
S.B. Bhasme and V.N. Ganpule for the Appellants. 
H 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, R.F. Nariman, B.H. Antia and Mrs. A.K. 
Verma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by the tenant. 
It arises out of an order of eviction passed by the Civil Judge, Thane 
and confirmed by the learned Assistant Judge of Thane on or about 
24th July, 1976. The High Court of Bombay on or about 3rd 
November, 1981 dismissed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.