LexYUSUFBHAI NOOR MOHAMMED JODHPURWALA versus MOHMMED SABIR IBRAHIM BYAVARWALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 1200 A YUSUFBHAINOORMOHAMMEDJODHPURWALA B v. MOHMMED SABIR IBRAHIM BYAVARWALA (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 735 of2014) NOVEMBER 7, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA, ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.] I . . c Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947- s. 12(3)(b)-Eviction suit, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent as also others - Dismissal of suit by trial courl, however allowed by appellate bench- In appeal, eviction decree in favour of landlord set aside by 0 High Courl - On appeal, held: Even assuming that the respondent is a bona fide tenant the right conferred upon him by the legislature can be availed of only twice and on two occasions the tenant was found to be in arrears - High Courl erred in interpreting s. 12(3)(b) purposively holding that there E was substantial compliance of the Section since the tenant was ready and willing to pay rent, even though there was shorl- · fall in payment - S.12(3)(b) being a mandatory provision must be strictly complied with- Thus,· order of High Courl is set aside, and that of appellate bench is restored. F Disposing of the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD: The tenant was in arrears of rent prior to the filing of the suit and continued to be so. On the date of the first hearing of the suit, there was short-fall in the payment of rent. Therefore, even assuming that the G respondent is a bonafide tenant the right that is conferred upon hi1J1 by the legislature can be availed of only twice and on both occasions the tenant was found to, be in arrears. The High Court was wrong in interpreting H 1200 YUSUFBHAINOORMOHAMMED JODHPURWALA v. MOHD. 1201 SABIR IBRAHIM BYAVARWALA Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging A House Rates Control Act, 1947, purposively holding that so long as the High Court, in its discretion, feels that there is a readiness and. willingness on the part of the tenant to pay rent, the High Court can in its discretion say that substantial compliance of Section 12(3)(b) is B good enough for the tenant to escape eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. Since s.12(3)(b) is construed to be a mandatory provision which must be strictly complied with. The order of High Court is set aside, and that of the appellate bench is restored. C [Para 9][1209-E-H; 1210-A-B] Vasant Ganesh Damle v. Shrikant Trimbak Datar 2002 (2) SCR 198: (2002) 4 SCC 183; Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant VishQU Shinde 1978 (3) SCR 198 : (1978) 2 SCC 573; Jamnadas Dharamdas v. Joseph Farreira 1980 (3) SCR 1015: (1980) 3 SCC 569 ; Mranalini B. Shah v. Bapa/al Mohan/al Shah (1980) 4 SCC 251 - referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE 2002 (2) SCR 198 referred to. Para 4 1978 (3) SCR 198 1980 (3) SCR 1015 (1980) 4 sec 251 referred to. referred to. referred to. Para 7 Para 7 Para 7 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No(s). 735 of2014. D E F From the Judgment and Order dated 30-09-2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision G Application No. 44 of 2013. Mayur R. Shah, Ms. S. Ramamani, Advs. for the Petitioner. • H 1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, J. 1. The present Special Leave Petition is a landlord's appeal against an order passed by the High Col;lrt of Gujarat B on 30'h September 2013 allowi,ng Civil Revision Application No.44/2013 by the tenant. . · 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this SLP are as follows: Some time in 1971 the landlady had let out the first floor C portion of the suit premises to the present respondent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. The standard rent was fixed by a court order in the year 1971 itself at the contractual re)'lt of Rs. 701- per month. On 9th March 1987 the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent-tenant stating that the tenant was in D arrears of rent for more than s'ix months i.e. on and after 1 •1 March 1986. Various other breaches were also pointed out by the said notice and a claim for bonafide requirement by the landlord and his family members was also made under Section 13(1 )(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The respondent tenant E replied to the notice denying all the allegations by a letter dated 9'h April 1987. This was followed by an eviction suit filed in 1987 under various grounds including arrears of rent under Section 12 (3)(a), under se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.