MAHENDRA RAGHUNATHDAS GUPTA versus VISHVANATH BHIKAJI MOGUL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 10-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHENDRA RAGHUNATHDAS GUPTA 
v. 
VISHVANATH BHIKAJI MOGUL AND ORS. 
APRIL 10, 1997 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.j 
Bombay Rellts, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, Jf>47: 
Ss. 2(1), 12(3)(a)-Tenant-Notice by Advocate of landlords' trans-
C ferees for arrears of rent-Tenant tendering rent by cheque to tire Advo-
cate-Held, tendering the amount by cheque within 30 days of the notice of 
demand, to the agent on behalf of the principal is a legal tender ofthe amoullt 
of a1Tears of rent-Tenant not committed any default-Not liable to be 
ejected-Transfer of Prope1ty Act, 1882-S. 106. 
D 
K. Saraswathy v. Somaswidaram, [1989] 4 SCC 527 = AIR (1989) SC 
1553, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14993 of 
1996. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.96 of the Bombay High 
F 
Court in W.P. No. 1814 of 1996. 
R.F. Nariman, G. Banerjee, Mrs. M. Karanjawala, M. Karanjawala 
and Mrs. Nandini Gore for the Appellant. 
V.N. Ganpule and AM. Khanwilkar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Bombay 
G High Court, made on July 17, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 1814 of 1996. 
The admitted facts are that one J agmohandas was the original tenant 
and the appellant is his brother. The landlords were Jayabai G. Ashar, 
Bachubhai alias Brijkuvar Bhagwandas, Krishnakumar alias Krishnadas 
Bhagwandas and Harikrishna C. Shantabai alias Malabai. After the demise 
H of his brother, the appellant became the tenant and paid the rent to the 
840 
M.R.GUPTAv. V.B.MOGUL 
841 
landlords. On March 10, 1981, the landlords wrote a letter directing the A 
appellant to pay rent jointly to one Shivajibhai Patel and one Ratilal Patel 
w.e.f. November 1, 1980. The appellant acted upon the letter and sent to 
the aforesaid two persons on May 6, 1981 the rents payable from November 
1, 1980 to April 30, 1980. The said cheque was returned to the appellant 
as being not acceptable. Subsequently, he was in the dark as to whom the 
rent was to be paid. It would appear that the landlords earlier to their letter 
dated March 10, 1981, had entered into an agreement with the respondent 
on September 27, 1980 and pursuant thereto, the sale deed came to be 
executed and registered on July 10, 1984 in favour of the respondents but 
no attornment was made. 
B 
c 
For the first time, Shri N.G. Gaikwad, Advocate, Nasik on instruc-
tions of respondent No. 1 sent a notice dated September 29, 1986 to the 
appellant to pay the arrears of rents from November 1, 1982 to the 
respondents. The appellant on receipt thereof has sent on October 15, 
1986, the rent in the form of a cheque for Rs. 2,952 in the name of Shri 
Gaikwad, which was rejected by him and thereafter the suit for ejectment D 
came to be filed. The defence taken by the appellant is that he paid the 
rent within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice demanding 
the payment of rent and, therefore, he was not in default. The question, 
therefore, is : whether the appellant has committed any default in the 
payment of the rent? Section 12(3)(a)of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and E 
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 envisages thus : 
"12. (1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of posses-
sion of any premises so long as the tenants pays, or is ready and 
willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted 
increases, if any and observes and performs the other conditions 
of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions 
of this Act. 
F 
(2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a 
landlord against tenant on the ground of non-payment of the G 
standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of 
one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the 
standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the 
tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882. 
H 
A 
B 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
(3)(a) Where the rent is payable by the month and there is no 
dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted in-
creases, if such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six 
months or more and the tenant neglects to make payment thereof 
u11til the expiration of the period of one Month after notice 
referred to in sub-section (2), the Court shall pass a decree for 
eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession." 
A reading
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.