LexJESHWANTRAI MULUKCHAND versus ANANDILAL BAPALAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JESHWANTRAIMULUKCHAND v. ANANDILAL BAPALAL December 7, 1964 [M. HlOAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.j Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Conttol Act, 1947, els. (a) & (b) of s. 12(3)-Application-Standard rent, (zxation. The appellant-tenant filed a suit for the fixation of standard rent and during its pendency paid the provisional standard rent fixed by the Court of Small Causes. After the final order fixing the standard rent of Rs. 125/- per month passed on November 9, 1956 both the tenant and landlord Jiled revisions in the District Court which were dismissed after contest on March 25, 1958. It appears that the landlord filed a further revision in the High Court about which it i• not known from the record when and how it was dismissed. After the order passed on No;embcr 9, 1956 the landlord demanded the balance of the ·rent due to him at the new rate and sent a registered notice but the tenant did not pay. Thereupon, the landlord filed the suit, giving rise to the present appeal, contending that the tenant was in arrears for six months which he had failed to pay within one month of the notice. The suit \\,.as terminated in favour of the tenant on April 28, 1958 because by then the back rent calculated ;.<t the •tandard rate finally fixed and the costs of the suit were fully paid by the tenant. The landlord appealed to the Assistant Judge claiming that after the stan- dard rent was fixed finally on March 25, 1956 the case fell to be governed by cl. (a) of s. 12(3) of the Act and as the tenant was in arrears for • period of six months he ought to have been evicted. The appeal failed as it was held that the tenant was protected by cl. (b) of s. 1~(3). On revision, the High Court reversed the decision being of the opinion that cl. (a) of s. 12(3) applied to the facts of the case. In appeal by •pedal leave : HELD : The appeal must be allowed. Eviction under cl. (a) is made to depend upon several cons1deration1 which must coexist and one such condition is that there shou!d be no dispute about the standard rent. Clause (b) comprehends all ca•es other than those falling within cl. (a) and a case in which there is a dispute about •tandard rent must obviously fall not in cl. (a) but in cl. (b). Since the dispute continued as both sides had filed revisions, the tenant was protected by cl. (b) of s. 12(3). [353 F-H] A B c D E F Vasumatiben Gaurishankar Bhatt v. Naviram Vora, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 417 G distinguished. Vora Abbasbhai A/imahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haii Safibhai, [1964] 5 S.C.R. 157 referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 539 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 24, 1961 and January 16, 1962 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 431 of 1960. I JESHWANTRAI v. ANANDILAL (Hidayatu//ah, I.) 351 A S., T. Desai, J. B. Dadacha11;i, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. Ganpat Rai, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B Hidayatullah, J. Je&hwantrai Mulukchand who appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated October 24, 1961, was a tenant of a shop belonging to Anandilal Bapalal respondent. By the judgment now under appeal the High Court reversed the concurrent decision of the two courts belo:w and ordered eviction of the appellant from the shop C on t}!e ground that he was in arrears for a period of six months in the payment of the rent. By a supplementary order dated January 16, 1962 mesne profits were also granted to the landlord till deli- very of possession of the shop. The High Court has differed from the two courts below in the application of the third sub-section of s. 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Con- n trol Act, 194 7, by which sub-section the pr<:sent proceedings were governed. The High Court held that cl. (a) of the sub-section applied while the courts below applied cl. (b). Before we read the section the facts necessary to understand this difference in the two points of view may be stated. E The tenant rented the shop from April i, 1954 and executed a rent note for Rs. 155/- p.m. From February 1, 1955 he did not pay the rent and when the landlord demanded it the tenant filed a suit for fixation of standard rent. During the pendency of those proceedings, the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad acting under s. 11(3) of the Act (to whic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.