- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jashwantrai Malukchand v. Anandilal Bapalal .
Factual and Procedural Background
Jashwantrai Malukchand (the tenant) rented a shop from Anandilal Bapalal (the landlord) on 1 April 1954 for Rs 155 per month. From 1 February 1955 the tenant stopped paying rent and, instead, filed a suit to fix the standard rent. During that suit, the Court of Small Causes provisionally fixed the rent at Rs 80 per month; the tenant paid all arrears at that provisional rate.
On 9 November 1956 the court finally fixed the standard rent at Rs 125 per month. Both parties challenged that figure in revision before the District Court; their revisions were dismissed on 25 March 1958. Meanwhile, on 4 March 1957, the landlord sued for eviction, asserting that six months’ rent remained unpaid and had not been cleared within one month of his notice.
The trial court dismissed the eviction suit on 28 April 1958 because the tenant had cleared all arrears (calculated at Rs 125 per month) and court costs. The landlord’s appeal before the Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, also failed. However, in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Gujarat High Court reversed those concurrent findings, ordered the tenant’s eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and later awarded mesne profits. The tenant obtained special-leave and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the circumstances, eviction was governed by Section 12(3)(a) or 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
- Whether the High Court could interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the subordinate courts had concurrently applied Section 12(3)(b).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Tenant)
- The High Court exceeded its power under Section 115 CPC because no jurisdictional error was involved (relying on Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai).
- Even if revisional jurisdiction was properly invoked, the tenant had complied with Section 12(3)(b) by paying provisional standard rent and subsequently discharging all arrears and costs before the suit was decided; therefore, eviction under Section 12(3)(a) was impermissible.
Respondent (Landlord)
- After the court fixed the standard rent at Rs 125 per month on 9 November 1956, no dispute about the amount remained. Consequently, because rent was payable monthly and six months’ arrears persisted beyond one month of notice, Section 12(3)(a) mandated eviction.
- Supported this view by citing Vasnmatiben Gaurishankar Bhatt v. Naviram Manchharam Vora.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai, AIR 1964 SC 1341 | Limits on High Court’s revisional power under Section 115 CPC and effect of tenant’s payment of arrears on eviction proceedings under Section 12(3)(a)/(b). | Supported the appellant’s contention that compliance with Section 12(3)(b) bars eviction; the Supreme Court relied on it while allowing the appeal. |
| Vasnmatiben Gaurishankar Bhatt v. Naviram Manchharam Vora, Civil Appeal No. 293 of 1963 (14 Aug 1963) | Proposition that once standard rent is fixed and undisputed, Section 12(3)(a) applies. | Cited by the landlord; the Supreme Court held it inapplicable to the present facts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court confined itself to the substantive question of whether clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 12(3) governed the case, finding it unnecessary to decide the revisional-jurisdiction issue.
Clause (a) applies only when all of its conditions coexist, one of which is the absence of any dispute over standard rent. The Court noted that a dispute undeniably persisted: both parties had challenged the Rs 125 determination in revision, and the landlord himself sought a higher figure. Because the dispute continued, the case necessarily fell under clause (b), which explicitly covers “any other case.”
The tenant had already fulfilled every requirement of clause (b): he applied for fixation of standard rent, paid the provisional rent as directed, cleared all arrears calculated at the court-fixed rate, and paid the costs of the suit. Having satisfied these statutory safeguards, the tenant was protected from eviction. The High Court therefore erred in invoking clause (a) and in reversing the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED. The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order of eviction and reinstated the judgment of the Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, thereby preserving the tenant’s possession of the shop. The respondent landlord was ordered to bear costs throughout.
Implications: The decision reaffirms that any continuing dispute over standard rent automatically brings a case under Section 12(3)(b), and that full compliance with that clause immunizes the tenant from eviction. No new principle was introduced, but the ruling underscores the limited scope of High Court intervention under Section 115 CPC in rent-control matters.
Hidayatullah, J.— Jashwantrai Malukchand who appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated October 24, 1961, was a tenant of a shop belonging to Anandilal Bapalal respondent. By the judgment now under appeal the High Court reversed the concurrent decision of the two courts below and ordered eviction of the appellant from the shop on the ground that he was in arrears for a period of six months in the payment of the rent. By a supplementary order dated January 16, 1962 mesne profits were also granted to the landlord till delivery of possession of the shop. The High Court has differed from the two courts below in the application of the third sub-section of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, by which sub-section the present proceedings were governed. The High Court held that clause (a) of the sub-section applied while the courts below applied clause (b). Before we read the section the facts necessary to understand this difference in the two points of view may be stated.
2. The tenant rented the shop from April 1, 1954 and executed a rent note for Rs 155 p.m From February 1, 1955 he did not pay the rent and when the landlord demanded it the tenant filed a suit for fixation of standard rent. During the pendency of those proceedings, the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad acting under Section 11(3) of the Act (to which reference is necessary) fixed Rs 80 p.m as provisional standard rent and the tenant paid Rs 1600 by instalments for the period for which he was then in arrears. On November 9, 1956 the court passed a final order fixing Rs 125 p.m as the standard rent. Both sides filed revisions against that order in the District Court and they were dismissed after contest on March 25, 1958. It appears that the landlord filed a further revision in the High Court but it is not known from the record when and how it was dismissed. After the order was passed on November 9, 1956, the landlord demanded Rs 1385 as the balance of the rent due to him at the new rate till the end of January 1957 and sent a registered notice but the tenant did not pay. On March 4, 1957 the landlord filed the suit from which this appeal arises contending that the tenant was in arrears for six months and had not paid the arrears within one month of the notice. This suit terminated in favour of the tenant on April 28, 1958 because by then the back rent calculated at Rs 125 p.m and the costs of the suit were fully paid by the tenant. The landlord appealed to the Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad claiming that after the standard rent was fixed finally on November 9, 1956 the case fell to be governed by clause (a) of Section 12(3) of the Act and as the tenant was in arrears for a period of six months he ought to have been evicted. The appeal was not accepted. The Assistant Judge held that the tenant was protected by clause (b) of Section 12(3) of the Act. On revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the decision was reversed as in the opinion of the High Court clause (a) of the third sub-section applied to the facts of the case.
3. Section 12 of the Act, insofar as it is material, may now be read:
“12. (1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act.
(2) * * *
(3)(a) Where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2), the Court shall pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession.
(b) In any other case, no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if, on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court.
(4) * * *
Explanation 1.— In any case where there is a dispute as to the amount of standard rent or permitted increases recoverable under this Act the tenant shall be deemed to be ready and willing to pay such amount if, before the expiry of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2), he makes an application to the Court under sub-section (3) of Section 11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases specified in the order made by the Court.
Explanation 2. * * *”
4. Mr S. T. Desai submits on behalf of the appellant that the High Court could not act under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure when no question of jurisdiction was involved and he refers to Vora Abbasbhai Alima homed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai AIR 1964 SC 1341. He argues in the alternative that as the tenant paid the provisional standard rent and discharged all arrears of standard rent and costs before the suit was decided he could not be evicted under clause (a) of the third sub-section and he relies on the same ruling. Mr Ganpatrai on the side of the landlord submits that after the decision of the court fixing Rs 125 p.m as standard rent, no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent remained and as rent was payable by the month and the tenant was in arrears for six months and did not pay the arrears of standard rent so fixed within one month of the notice to him, the court was bound to pass a decree of eviction under clause (a). This is how the High Court also viewed the matter. He relies upon Vasnmatiben Gaurishankar Bhatt v. Naviram Manchharam Vora (Civil Appeal No. 293 of 1963 decided by this Court on August 14, 1963).
5. The decision referred to by Mr Ganapatrai has no application here. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to decide the first of Mr Desai's contentions because this appeal can be disposed of on a consideration of the rival contentions on the second point. We are concerned with the two clauses (a) and (b) of Section 12(3). Eviction under clause (a) is made to depend upon several conditions which must coexist and which find adequate enumeration in our summary of Mr Ganpatrai's argument. One such condition is that there should be no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent. Clause (b) comprehends all cases other than those falling within clause (a) and a case in which there is a dispute about the standard rent must obviously fall not in clause (a) but in clause (b). There was here a dispute about standard rent. The tenant had already made an application for fixation of standard rent, paid the arrears of provisional standard rent and complied with the requirements of clause (b). He was therefore protected.
6. The contention of Mr Ganpatrai that the dispute regarding the standard rent came to an end on November 9, 1956 when the court fixed Rs 125 p.m as the standard rent would be correct if the parties accepted the determination. But neither side did. Each side questioned the amount by filing a revision in the District Court. It is particularly strange for the landlord to claim that there was no dispute subsisting when he himself filed one revision after another to get the amount increased. Since the dispute continued, the case was not governed by clause (a) but by clause (b) and the High Court was in error in applying the former clause and reversing the decisions based on the latter.
7. The appeal will be allowed and the judgment of the High Court will be set aside and that of the Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad will be restored. The respondent will bear the costs throughout.
Alert