MRS. MANORAMA S. MASUREKAR versus MRS. DHANLAXMI G. SHAH AND ANR.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 23-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MRS. MANORAMA S. MASUREKAR 
v. 
MRS. DHANLAXMI G. SHAH AND ANR. 
August 23, 1966 
[K .. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.) 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging· House Rates Control Act (57 of 
1947), s. 12(1) and (3)(a)-Scope of. · 
The tenant of a flat was in arrears of reni for more thari six months. 
The landlord served a notice on the tenant demanding the rent. 
The 
tenant did not pay it within one month of the notice, but tendered it 
. after the expiry of tho month. The landlord refused .to receive it and 
filed a suit for eviction. under s. 12(3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel 
and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The tenant claimed the 
protection of s. 12 ( 1) of the Act on the ground that she was ready 
and willing to pay the rent before the institution of the suit. 
HELD: Under s. 12(3) (a), the landlord is ·vested with the right 
to recover possession of the premises if the rent is in 
arrears 
for six 
months or more, the tenant neglects to pay it until after the expiry of 
one month after notice demanding the rent and other conditions of subps. 
(3) (a) are saitisfied. This right cannot be defeated by 
showing that 
the tenant was ready and willing to pay the rent after the default but be-
fore tho institution of the suit. 
In a case falling within sub.s. (3) (a), the 
tenant must be dealt with under its special provisions and he cannot claim 
any protection from eviction under the general provisions of sub-s. 
( 1): 
and the coun was bound to pass a decree for eviction. (137 E, FJ 
· 
Bhalya Punjalal Bhagwanddin v. Dave Bhagwat Prasad Prabhuprasad, 
[1963] 3 S.C.R. 312, followed. 
Mohan/al v. Malieshwari 
Mills Ltd. (1962) 3 
Guj. L.R. 574· and 
Ambala .v. Babaldas, (1962) 3 Guj. L.R. 625, overruled. 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 469 of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
November 25, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision 
Application No. 1579of1962. 
S. G. Patwardlzan and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant 
S. T. [)esai and K. L. Hathi, for1 n~spondent No. I 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. 
The question arising in this appeal by special 
leave is whether in a case falling under sub-s.(3)(a) of s. 12 of the 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 
1947 (Act No. 57 of 1947), a tenant can claim p(otection from 
eviction by showing his readiness and willingness to pay the 
arrears of rent before the date of the institution of the suit. The 
appellant's husband was a tenant of a fiat. The rent was in arrears 
135 
136 
SUPREME COURT llBPORTS 
[1967] I S.C.lt. 
for a period of more than six months. On December 22, 1956, 
the landlord served a notice 011 the tenant demanding the rent. 
The tenant neglected to pay the rent 
within one month of the 
notice. On January 11, 1957, he died. 
On February 4, 1957, 
the appellant sent the arrears of rent to the landlord by money 
order, but the landlord refused to accept the payment. 
On Fe-
bruary 5, 1957, the landlord instituted the present suit for evic-
tion of the appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit. 
The 
appellant filed a revision application before the Bombay High 
Court, but this applicati0n was dismissed by the High Court. 
It is to be noticed that the rent was in arrears for a period 
of more than six months. The tenant neglected to make pay-
ment of the arrears of rent within one month of the service of 
the notice by the landlord under sub-s. (2) of s.12. The rent was 
payable by the month, and there was no dispute regarding the 
amount of the rent. The case was, therefore, precisely covered 
by sub-s. (3)(a) of s. 12. Nevertheless, the appellant submitted 
that as· she was ready and willing to pay the rent before the insti-
tution of the suit, she could claim protectio11 under sub-s. (I) of 
s. 12. She submitted that the decided cases support this conten-
tion. 
In Mohan/a/ v. Maheslnrari Mills Ltd.( 1), P. 1\. Bhagwati, 
J. held that even in a ease falling under sub-s. (3) (a), a tenant could. 
by paying or showing his readiness and willing11ess to pay the 
arrears of rent before the institution of the suit, claim protec-
tion from 
eviction under sub-s. (I). A similar opinion was ex-
pressed by a Divisional Bench of the Gujarat High Court in 
Amba/al v. Rabaldas('). The judgment 
under appeal dissented 
from the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court. The Bombay 
High Court held, and, in our opinion, rig

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