PARADISE INDUSTRIAL CORPN. BOMBAY versus KILN PLASTICS PRODUCTS

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 32 · Decided: 29-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

32 
A 
PARADISE INDUSTRIAL CORPN. BOMBAY 
v. 
KILN PLASTICS PRODUCTS 
September 29, 1975 
B 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.~ombay Rellts, Hotel cond Lodging 
House Rates Comrol Act, 
1947. 
Secrwn 11(4)-Failure of defendants to deposit arrears of rent after fixation 
of fair rent-Court. if competent to make order that defences oi defendants 
be struck on failure to deposit arJ"ears of rent. 
The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants-respondents for 
recovery of possession of the property ·leased to them as also rent and mesne 
profits in March, 1968. It was alleged that the defendants were in arrears of 
rent from bt March, 1966 and that the 1wt was Rs. 385 /· a inonth. 
On 
30th January, 1968, a notice to quit was given to the defendants and the 
notice was served on lsf February, 1968. 
On 20fh February, 1968 they filed 
an application under s.11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House 
Rates Control Act. 1947 for fixation of standard rent. 
It was thereafter 
that the suit was filed in March, 1968. 
On 23rd November 1968, the suit 
came up before a Judgi;: of the Small Causes Court and after hearing the 
parties he made an order requiring the defendants to deposit R9. 13.00-0/• 
as rent due up to the end of December 1968 and interim sta11dard rent of 
Rs. 308/- per month to be paid beginning from February 15, 1969. 
It was 
further ordered that in default of the defendants depositing the amount the 
plaintiffs were at liberty to follow the consequential remedy under s.11 ( 4) 
of the Act. 
The defendants did not deposit the amount ordered by the Court 
and on 24th February 1969 the plaintiffs applied to the Court praying for 
a notice to be issued to the defendants to show cause why they should not 
deposit the aggregate amount of rent and further rent of Rs. 385 I., 
per 
month from !st August, 1969, till the 
disposal of the suit. 
There was a 
fmiher prayer that in default of the deposit of the amount the defences 
of 
the defendants may be ordered to be struck off. 
Upon this application a 
notice was issued to the defendants and on 2nd June, 1969, an order was 
made requiring the defendants to deposit Rs. 14,007 I· within one month and 
to continue to deposit Rs. 385 /· per month in accordance with the earlier 
order. 
It was further ordered that in default of the deposit the defences of 
the defendants were to be struck off and that the suit should be placed for 
ex parte orders on 15th July. 1969. 
The defendants were absent on that 
day, and the suit was adjourned to 5th August, 1969. On the 5th August the suit 
was again adjourned to 6th and on that day an ex-parte decree for possession, 
recovery of arears of rent and costs was passed. 
However, on the 4th August 
the defendants had mad1e an application stating that on proper calculation the 
amount of arrears of rent would come to Rs. 7065/- and praying for extension 
of time for deposit of this amount. The defendants were allowed to deposit the 
amount without prejudice to the rights and contentibns of the partie9 and notice 
was ordered to be issued to the plaintiffs. The defendants deposited the amount 
but did not take out <llld serve the notice on the plaintiffs and the notice was ulti-
mately discharged for want of prosecution on 19fh September, 1969. An appear 
was filed before the App~lla~e Bench of the Simall Causes Court against the ex-
parte decree and it was dismissed. The High Court on an application mad.e by 
the defendants under Art. 227 of the Constitution set aside the decree passed bv 
the Small Causes Court on 6th August, 1%9 as also the decree passecl by the 
Appellate Bench and also dismissed the suit. 
The High Court held that the order passed by the Small Causes Court 
on June 2 1969 was illegal and without jurisdiction and every step that was 
taken by 'the Court subsequently was without jurisdiction and, theref9re, 
was illegal. The High Court further held that as the defendants had deposited 
y 
... 
( 
., 
J 
} 
PARADISE INDUSJ'RIAL CORP. v. KILN PRODUCTS (Alagiriswami, J.) 33 
all amounts as ordered by the Court previous to the order of June'. 2. 1969 
and also deposited the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 308/ ~ per month the 
matter would fall under s. 12 (3) (b) and the suit should be dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal by spe~ial leave, 
HELD : ( 1 ) The Judge of the Small Causes used the words "defences to 
be struck off" and did not use the words "he sh

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