PIONEER PAPER BOX FACTORY versus SMT. THAKURDEVI SHRINIWAS

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 26-05-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PIONEER PAPER BOX FACTORY 
v. 
SMT. THAKURDEVI SHRINIWAS 
May 26, 1970 
[A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Bombay Rent Act (57 of 1947). s. 12(3)(b)-Scope of. 
Practice-Revision and review dismissed by High Court-Allegation of 
fact not brought to the notice of the High Court~Whether can be per· 
mit•ed to be raised in this Court. 
A 
B 
ln a suit for evicition on the ground of non-payment of rent a dccrtc 
C 
was passed directing the tenant to pay the landlady's costs, as, by that 
time, the tenant had paid all the arrears of rent as fixed; but the tenant 
did not pay or tender the costs. Therefore, the court passed an order 
of eviction. 
His appeal, a revision to the High Court, and a review 
petition to the High Court were all dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (I) The tenant would be entitled to the 
protection under 
D 
s. 12(3)(b) of the. Bombay Rent Act. only if he complied with it. pro· 
visions by paying or tendering not only the arrears of rent but ah10 the 
costs of the suit. Since the appellant admi~ted his inability 
to comply 
with the provision, he could not chim protection against eviction. [627 
D, OJ 
· 
(2) Assuming that the costs were paid at a later date as alleged by 
the appellant, that fact was not brought to the notice of the High Court, 
E 
and therefore this Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion 
by the High Court in the set of 'facts and circumstances presented to the 
High Court .. [628 F·G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 36 of 
1968. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 19, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision 
Application No. 167 of 1959. 
V. M. Tarkunde, P. C. Bhartari, 0. C. Mathur and Ravt'nder 
Narain, for the appellant. 
A. K. Sen, M. S. Gupta and S. L. Jain, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ray, J. 
This appeal is by special leave from the judgment 
dated 19 November, 1963 of the High Court of Bombay dismis· 
sing the appellant defendant tenai1fs application for revision in a 
decree for eviction of the defendant. 
· 
The appellant was ten;nt of the respondent. 
On 28 April, 
1954 the appellant filed an application under section 11 of the 
Bombay Rent Act for fixation of standard· rent. 
During the 
F 
.G 
H. 
.A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' 
G 
H 
PIONEER PAPE'!. BOX v. THAKURDEVI (Ray, /,) 
627 
pendency of the application the respondent landlady served a 
notice on the appellant in the month of March, 1955 terminating 
the tenancy on the ground that the appellant had failed to pay 
rent from I March, 1954. On 25 April, 1955 a sui~ was filed 
for. eviction of the appellant. 
During the pendency of the suit on 29 
June, 
1956, 'the 
standard rent was fixed at Rs. 55 /7 (- p.m. The contractual rent 
was Rs. 85/- p.m. 
When the suit came up for hearing on 5 October, 1956, it 
appeared that the appellant paid all the arrears of rent in accord-
ance with the standard rent but did not pay the costs of the suit. 
The trial court passed an ejectment decree against the appellant. 
The appellant preferred an appeal. The appellate court• took 
the view that the order of the trial court was justified under sec-
tion 12(3!(bl of the Bombay Rent Ac!. 
Section 12(3)(b) of 
the Bombay Rent Act provides that no decree in eviction shall be 
passed, if on the first day of the hearing of the suit or on or 
before such other date -as the court may fix, the tenant pays or 
tenders in. the court the standard rent and permitted increase in 
rent due, and thereafter continues to pay or tender in court regu-
larly the said rent and permitted increase till the suit is finally 
decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court. 
The appellant then filed an application for revision. in the 
High Court. 
The contention which was advanced in the High 
Court and repeated here was that the courts were iii error .in 
dl:creeing the suit for non-payment of costs because the trial 
court had not passed any order fixing the amount of costs. 
It 
was said that only when an order determining the amount of costs 
had been made by the court that the tenant could be .said to be 
within the mischief of the provisions of the statute for non-pay-
ment of costs so determined by the courts. 
The High Court rightly rejecte<l 
the contention for two 
reasons. First, though a formal order as to costs was not made, 
yet the trial court had made an order directing the appellant to 
pay the amount of costs arid

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