SHAH DHANSUKHLAL CHHAGANLAL versus DALICHAND VIRCHAND SHROFF AND OTHERS

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 346 · Decided: 01-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH, R.S. BACHAWAT, G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHAH DHANSUKHLAL CHHAGANLAL 
v. 
DAUCHAND VIRCHAND SHROFF AND OlllERS 
March 1, 1968 
(J.C. SHAH, R. S. BACHAWAT AND·G. K. MITTER, JJ.) 
Bombay Rents Hotel and Lddging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Ss. 
12(1) and 12(3)(b)-Conditions for benefit under. 
The appeJlant was a tenant of the respondent. Havjng fallen into 
arrears of rent he was given a notice (a) demanding arrears of ront and 
permitted increases nnder the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House 
Rates Control Act, 1947, and (b) terminating his tenancy in terms of s. 
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, Receiving no response to the notice 
the respondent filed a suit against the appellant. On the first day of the 
hearing of the suit and during its pendency the appellant deposited part 
of the arr·,.rs in Court but not the full amonnt due. The trial Court 
passed a decr·oe against him which was confirmed by the appellate Court. 
The High Court dismissed his revision petition. With special leave he 
appealed to this Court and urged that (i) he was entitled to the benefit of 
s. 12(1) of the Act and that (ii) even ifs. 12(3)(b) was applied he was 
not liable to be ejected. 
HELD : (i) Section 12(1) must be read with the Explanation and 
so read it means that a tenant can only be considered ''to be ready and 
willing to pay" if, before the expiry of the period of one month 
after 
notice referred to in sub-s. (2), he makes an aPPlication to the court 
under sub·s. (3) of section 11 and hereafter pays or tenders the amount 
of rent or permitted increases specified by the court. The readiness and 
willingness to pay has to be judged in the light of the facts of the case. 
Where as in the present case a suit is filed on the ground that the tenant 
was in arrears for a period of more than six months and although raising 
a dispute· as to the standard rent or permitted increases recoverable under 
the Act, the t->nant makes no application in terms of s. 11(3) he cannot 
claim the protection of s. 12 (1) by merely offering to pay or even paying 
ail arrears due from him when the court is about to pass a decree against 
him. [351 H-352 BJ 
Shah Bho;rai Kuver;i Oil Mills arrd Ginning Factory v. Subbash 
Cha11dra Yograi Sinha, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 159, distinguished. 
Vora Ahhasbhai Alimahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai, [1964] 
5 S.C.R. 157, Mrs. M<norama Masurekar v. Mrs. Dhanlaxmi G. Shah and 
another. [1967] 1 S.C.R. 135, applied, 
(ii) The case did not come under s. 12(3)(b), To be within the 
protection of that provision, the tenant must not only pay alt the arrears 
due from him on the first day of the hearing of the suit, but he must 
, thereafter continue to pay or tender in court regularly the rent and the 
permitted increase till the suit is finally decided. There was a failure on 
the part of ti>, appellant to pay or tender in court all the amounts which 
fell due, and he could not therefore get the protection o~ s. I2(3)(b) 
of the Act. [353 B-El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 455 of 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 11, 1962 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision 
Application No. 150 of 1960. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
s. D. CHHAGANLAL v. D. v. SHROFF (Mitter, /.) 
347 
G. L. S.u1ghi, and B. R. Agarwala, (or the appellant. 
0. P. Malhotra and Ravi11der Narain, for the respondents 
Nos. 1 to 4. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, 1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg-
ment of the High Court of Gujarat passed in a Civil Revision 
Application arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent 
against the defendant-appellant to recover possession of certain 
premises situate in Surat. 
The facts are as follows. The appellant became a tenant of 
the respondent under a rent note executed on February 27, 1947 
whereby rent was fixed at Rs. 40 per month and the tenancy 
was to be for a period of one year from 22nd February, 1947. 
After the expiry of the said period, the appellant continued as a 
monthly tenant on the same terms and conditions as were to be 
found in the rent note. He fell into arrears of payment of rent 
and the respondent sued him for eviction some time in 1951. 
The suit was eventually compromised by a petition put in court 
bearing date September 16, 1952, Under the terms of the com-
promise, the defendant continued as a tenant from September 1, 
l 952 .on the terms and conditions of the rent note dated Feb-
ruary 27, 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.