# JESHWANTRAIMULUKCHAND v. ANANDILAL BAPALAL

- **Citation:** [1965] 2 S.C.R. 350
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964-12-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 539 of 1963
- **Bench:** M. HlOAYATULLAH, J. C. Shah, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jeshwantraimulukchand-v-anandilal-bapalal-3412
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Conttol Act, 1947,
els. (a) & (b) of s. 12(3)-Application-Standard rent, (zxation.
The appellant-tenant filed a suit for the fixation of standard rent and
during its pendency paid the provisional standard rent fixed by the Court
of Small Causes. After the final order fixing the standard rent of Rs. 125/-
per month passed on November 9, 1956 both the tenant and landlord Jiled
revisions in the District Court which were dismissed after contest on
March 25, 1958. It appears that the landlord filed a further revision in
the High Court about which it i• not known from the record when and
how it was dismissed. After the order passed on No;embcr 9, 1956 the
landlord demanded the balance of the ·rent due to him at the new rate
and sent a registered notice but the tenant did not pay. Thereupon, the
landlord filed the suit, giving rise to the present appeal, contending that
the tenant was in arrears for six months which he had failed to pay within
one month of the notice. The suit \\,.as terminated in favour of the tenant
on April 28, 1958 because by then the back rent calculated ;.<t the •tandard
rate finally fixed and the costs of the suit were fully paid by the tenant.
The landlord appealed to the Assistant Judge claiming that after the standard rent was fixed finally on March 25, 1956 the case fell to be governed
by cl. (a) of s. 12(3) of the Act and as the tenant was in arrears for •
period of six months he ought to have been evicted. The appeal failed as
it was held that the tenant was protected by cl. (b) of s. 1~(3). On
revision, the High Court reversed the decision being of the opinion that
cl. (a) of s. 12(3) applied to the facts of the case. In appeal by •pedal
leave :
HELD : The appeal must be allowed.
Eviction under cl. (a) is made to depend upon several cons1deration1
which must coexist and one such condition is that there shou!d be no
dispute about the standard rent.
Clause (b) comprehends all ca•es other
than those falling within cl. (a) and a case in which there is a dispute about
•tandard rent must obviously fall not in cl. (a) but in cl. (b).
Since the dispute continued as both sides had filed revisions, the tenant
was protected by cl. (b) of s. 12(3). [353 F-H]
A
B
c
D
E
F
Vasumatiben Gaurishankar Bhatt v. Naviram Vora, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 417
G
distinguished.
Vora Abbasbhai A/imahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haii Safibhai, [1964]
5 S.C.R. 157 referred to.

## Text

JESHWANTRAIMULUKCHAND
v.
ANANDILAL BAPALAL
December 7, 1964
[M. HlOAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.j
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Conttol Act, 1947,
els. (a) & (b) of s. 12(3)-Application-Standard rent, (zxation.
The appellant-tenant filed a suit for the fixation of standard rent and
during its pendency paid the provisional standard rent fixed by the Court
of Small Causes. After the final order fixing the standard rent of Rs. 125/-
per month passed on November 9, 1956 both the tenant and landlord Jiled
revisions in the District Court which were dismissed after contest on
March 25, 1958. It appears that the landlord filed a further revision in
the High Court about which it i• not known from the record when and
how it was dismissed. After the order passed on No;embcr 9, 1956 the
landlord demanded the balance of the ·rent due to him at the new rate
and sent a registered notice but the tenant did not pay. Thereupon, the
landlord filed the suit, giving rise to the present appeal, contending that
the tenant was in arrears for six months which he had failed to pay within
one month of the notice. The suit \\,.as terminated in favour of the tenant
on April 28, 1958 because by then the back rent calculated ;.<t the •tandard
rate finally fixed and the costs of the suit were fully paid by the tenant.
The landlord appealed to the Assistant Judge claiming that after the standard rent was fixed finally on March 25, 1956 the case fell to be governed
by cl. (a) of s. 12(3) of the Act and as the tenant was in arrears for •
period of six months he ought to have been evicted. The appeal failed as
it was held that the tenant was protected by cl. (b) of s. 1~(3). On
revision, the High Court reversed the decision being of the opinion that
cl. (a) of s. 12(3) applied to the facts of the case. In appeal by •pedal
leave :
HELD : The appeal must be allowed.
Eviction under cl. (a) is made to depend upon several cons1deration1
which must coexist and one such condition is that there shou!d be no
dispute about the standard rent.
Clause (b) comprehends all ca•es other
than those falling within cl. (a) and a case in which there is a dispute about
•tandard rent must obviously fall not in cl. (a) but in cl. (b).
Since the dispute continued as both sides had filed revisions, the tenant
was protected by cl. (b) of s. 12(3). [353 F-H]
A
B
c
D
E
F
Vasumatiben Gaurishankar Bhatt v. Naviram Vora, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 417
G
distinguished.
Vora Abbasbhai A/imahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haii Safibhai, [1964]
5 S.C.R. 157 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 539 of
1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
October 24, 1961 and January 16, 1962 of the Gujarat High
Court in Civil Revision Application No. 431 of 1960.
I
JESHWANTRAI v. ANANDILAL (Hidayatu//ah, I.)
351
A
S., T. Desai, J. B. Dadacha11;i, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder
Narain, for the appellant.
Ganpat Rai, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
Hidayatullah, J. Je&hwantrai Mulukchand 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 belo:w and ordered eviction of the appellant from the shop
C on t}!e 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
s. 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Conn trol Act, 194 7, by which sub-section the pr<:sent proceedings were
governed.
The High Court held that cl. (a) of the sub-section
applied while the courts below applied cl. (b). Before we read
the section the facts necessary to understand this difference in the
two points of view may be stated.
E
The tenant rented the shop from April i, 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
s. 11(3) of the Act (to which reference is unnecessary) fixed
F 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 dhmissed after contest on March 25, 1958. It appears that the
G 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, i 957 the landlord filed the suit
ff 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
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1965] 2 S.C.R.
on April 28, 1958 because by then the back rent calculated at A
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 cl. (a) of s. 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
B
accepted. The Assistant Judge held that the tenant was protected
by cl. ( b) of s. l '2 ( 3) of the Act. On revision before the High
Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the decision
was reversed as in the opinion of the High Court .cl. (a) of the
third sub-section applied to the facts of the case.
c
Section 12 of the Act, in so far 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, in so
far 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
evictio11 in any such suit for recovery of possession.
( b) In any other case, no decree for .eviction shall be
passed ih any such suit if, on the first day of hearing of
the suit or en 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 premitted 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'
D
F
G
H
I
I
A
B
c
JESHWANTRAI v. ANANDILAL (Hidayatul/ah, J.)
JSJ.
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.
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 A/imahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai ('). 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 cl. (a) of the third sub-section and he relies on the same
ruling. Mr. Ganpatrai on the side of the landlorq submits that after
D 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 cl. (a). This is how the High Court also
E
viewed the matter.
He relies upon V asumatiben Gaurishankar
Bhatt v. Naviram Mancharam Vora and Others( 2 ).
The decision referred to by Mr. Ganpatrai 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
F
consideration of the rival contentions on the second point. We
are concerned with the two clauses (a) and (b) of s.
12(3).
Eviction under cl. (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
G rent.
Clause (b) comprehends all cases other than those falling
within cl. (a) and a case in which there is a dispute about the
standard rent must obviously fa!J not in cl. (a) but in cl. (b).
There was here a dispute about standard rent. The tenant had
already made an application for fixation of stafidard rent, paid
the arrears of provisional standard r.~nt and complied with the
H requirements of cl. (b). He was therefore protected.
(I} [1964] S S.C.R. IS1.
(2) (1964] 4 S.C.R. 417
354
SUPREME COURT llEPOll.TS
(1965] 2 S.C.R.
The contention of Mr. Ganpatrai t11at the dispute regarding
A
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
B
after another to get the amount increased.
Since the dispute
continued, the case was not governed by cl. (a) but by cf. (b) and
the High Court was in error in applying the former clause and
reversing the decisions based on the latter.
The appeal will be allowed and the judgment of the High Court C
will be set aside and that of the Assista11! Judge, Ahmedabad will
be restored. The respondent will bear the costs throughout.
A ppea/ allowed
..
I