MOHAN LAXMAN HEDE versus NOORMOHAMED ADAM SHAIKH

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 07-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
MOHAN LAXMAN HEDE 
v. 
NOORMOHAMED ADAM SHAIKH 
APRIL 7, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK C.J.I., M.H. KANIA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 
t947-Seciion 12(3)(b)-'Regularity' in payment-Significance of-
Exact or mathematical punctuality not required. 
Appellant took the tenancy or the premises in question on an 
agreed monthly rent of Rs.22 + Rs.2.20 per month on account of 
Education Cess. Respondent purchased the house on December 3, 1976. 
Appellant was in arrears of rent from J.6. 1976 to 30.11. 76. In response 
to the notice issued by the Respondent, appellant sent a money order to 
Respondent treating him as the Muktyar or agent of the previous land-
lord. The respondent refused the money order. Thereafter the appel-
lant filed an application in the trial court for fixing the standard rent of 
the premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and 
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
The Respondent filed a suit claiming arrears of rent and posses-
sion of the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of 
rent and bona fide requirement under section 12(3) and section 13(1) of 
the Act. Trial Court passed an order fixing the interim rent of Rs.20 
and directed the appellant to pay all arrears of rent and future rent 
accordingly. Appellant deposited the arrears and thereafter made pay-
men.t not monthly but at some irregular intervals. 
The Trial Court held that the respondent had failed to prove that 
he was in bona fide need of the suit premises, but passed a decree for 
eviction on the ground that the Appellant had committed default in 
payment of rent as contemplated under section 12(3)(b) of the Act. On 
appeal these findings were confirmed by the Additional District Judge. 
The Appellant tiled a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was dis-
missed. In the appeal by special leave, it was contended on behalf of the 
appellant that payments of rents were made with substantial regularity 
and that no decree for eviction could be passed against the Appellant. 
The contention of the Respondent was that there was irregularity in the 
/ 
deposit of the rent and that the appellant was liable to be evicted on the 
ground of default in payment of rent. 
461 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
119881 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal this Court, 
HELD: J. Section 12(3)(a) of the· Act will not be applicable since 
there was dispute regarding the amount of standard rent. S~etion 
12(3)(b) is applicable, which makes it clear that no decree for eviction 
can be passed in a suit for recovery of possession on the ground of 
B 
non-payment of standard rent or permitted increases instituted by the 
landlord against the tenant, if on the first day of the hearing of the suit 
or on or before such a date, as the court may fix, the tenant pays or 
deposits in court the standard rent and permitted increases then due 
and thereafter continues to pay or deposits in court regularly such rent 
and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays the 
c costs of the suit as directed by the court. l466E-FI 
2. As ordered by the Trial Court, the monthly rent should have 
been deposited on the fifth day of each succeeding month. There were a 
few defaults committed by the Appellant varying from 2 to 3 days into a 
D 
maximum of 23 days. On the other hand, rent for most of the months 
had been deposited in advance. In the circumstances of the case the 
Appellant had been depositing the rent with reasonable punctuality and 
can be regarded as having deposited the rent 'regularly' as contemp-
lated in Section 12(3)(b) and it is incorrect to say that exact or 
mathematical punctuality was required in the deposit of rent by a ten-
E 
ant to take advantage of the provision<; of Section 12(3)(b). l467G-H; 468A-CI 
(Mranalini B Shah and another v. Bapalal Mohan/al Shah, 119801 
4 S.C.C. 251, followed. 
!The decree for eviction was set aside and the court directed that 
F 
the suit filed by the Respondent shall stand dismissed.I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1449 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.1987 of the Bombay 
G 
High Court in W.P. No. 6028 of 1986. 
V .M. Tarkunde and S.C. Birla for the Appellant. 
V.B. Joshi and Janardan for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
"( 
~ ~ 
-
'. 
-1,- .. 
~ 
-
-
M.L. HEDE v. N.A. SHAIKH [KANIA, J.] 
463 
KANIA, J. This is an Appeal by a tenant against
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.