LexVORA ABBASBHAL ALIMAHOMED versus HAJI GULAMNABI HAJI SAFIBHAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
L ....... 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 157 s. 45 of the Act and, if so, whether the jurisdiction 1963 of the Tribunal could only be invoked in the manner prescribed thereunder. Rai Chand Amu- For the foregoing reasons we hold that both the lakh Shah High Court and the trial Court went wrong in dis- v. missing the suits on the ground that s. 26 of the Act Union of India was a bar against their maintainability. We, there- Subba Rao J. fore, set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court and remand the suits to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. We should not be understood to have ex- pressed any opinion on the other questions raised in the suits. The respondent will pay the costs of the appellants here. The costs of the courts below will abide the result. Suits remanded. VORA ABBASBHAl ALIMAHOMED v. HAJI GULAMNABI HAJI SAFIBHAJ (A.K. SARKAR, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, s. 12-Protection against eviction-Scope ofs. 12 (1)-"May" in 12(3) (a) whether mandatory-Protection of 12(3) (h) when avail- able-S. 12, Explanation, effect of-"Standard rent"-Meaning of-Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court when exercisable-Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act 5of1908), s. 115. The Appellant was the tenant of the respondent occupying of the latter premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 70. The appellant appealed to the Civil Judge for fixing standard rent under s. 11(1) and fo1 specifying interim rent under s. 11(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and deposited a ce1tain amount to the credit of the respondent. Subsequently the respondent filed a suit before the Civil Judge for evicting the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Civil 1963 October 22 1963 Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed v. H aji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] Judge ordered the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 51 per month within 15 days. He substantially complied with his order. The two. proceedings were amalgamated. The Civil Judge fixed the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month and dismissed the suit for eviction on the ground-that the appellant was willing to pay the standard rent within the meaning of s. 12 of the Act. In appeal the District Court fixed the standard rent Rs. 70 per mensem and found that since the appellant had complied with · the order to deposit arrears and since he was ready and willing and ready to pay standard rent he confirmed order of the lower court 0 rder of dismissing of the suit. The respondent took the matter in revision before the High Court under s. 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court reversed the order of the District Court and directed eviction on the grounds that appellant was not ready and willing to pay the standard rent, that he had not deposited the standard rent at the rate enhanced by the District Court and that he had not paid the interim rent at the rate fixed by the trial Court. Held: (i) Section 12 (1) of the Act applies to a tenant who continues to remain in occupation even after the determination of the contractual tenancy. Such a tenant is entitled to claim pro- tection from eviction against eviction so long as he is willing and ready to pay the standard rent and permitted increases and observe other conditions under the Act. This protection is subject to the provisions of s. 13 and to the limitations contained in s. 12(2) ands. 12(3) (a). The expression "may" ins. 12(3) (a) has a manda- tory content: if the conditions of this clause are fulfilled the court is bound to pass a decree in ejectment against the tenant. Bhaiya Punyalal Bhagwandin v. Bhagwatprasad, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 312. (ii) The power to fix standard rent is exercisable under s. 11(1) alone. To bring his claim within s. 12(3) (b) the tenant must pay or tender the standard rent fixed by the court and permitted increases on or before the first day of hearing or on before >uch other date fixed by the court. The amount of costs has to be paid or deposited only if the court so directs. If in appeal the standard rent is en- hanced the appeal court may fix a date for payment of the difference and if the tenant pays the difference on or before the day so fixed he will be entitled to get the protection of s. 12(3) (h). (iii) Explanation to s. 12 erects a ru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.