http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: MOHAN LAXMAN HEDE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NOORMOHAMED ADAM SHAIKH

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/04/1988

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1111            1988 SCR  (3) 461  1988 SCC  (2) 481        JT 1988 (2)    56  1988 SCALE  (1)656  CITATOR INFO :  D          1988 SC1817  (5)

ACT:      Bombay Rents,  Hotel and  Lodging House  Rates  Control Act,   1947-Section    12(3)(b)-’Regularity’   in   payment- Significance  of-Exact   or  mathematical   punctuality  not required.

HEADNOTE: %      Appellant took  the tenancy of the premises in question on an  agreed monthly  rent of  Rs.22 + Rs.2.20 per month on account of Education Cess. Respondent purchased the house on December 3,  1976. Appellant  was in  arrears of  rent  from 1.6.1976 to  30.11.76. In  response to  the notice issued by the Respondent,  appellant sent  a money order to Respondent treating him  as  the  Muktyar  or  agent  of  the  previous landlord. The respondent refused the money order. Thereafter the appellant  filed an  application in  the trial court for fixing  the   standard  rent   of  the  premises  under  the provisions of  the Bombay  Rents, Hotel  and  Lodging  House Rates Control Act, 1947.      The Respondent  filed a  suit claiming  arrears of rent and possession  of the  suit premises  on the ground of non- payment of  arrears of  rent and bona fide requirement under section 12(3)  and section  13(1) of  the Act.  Trial  Court passed an  order  fixing  the  interim  rent  of  Rs.20  and directed the appellant to pay all arrears of rent and future rent  accordingly.   Appellant  deposited  the  arrears  and thereafter made  payment not  monthly but  at some irregular intervals.      The Trial  Court held that the respondent had failed to prove that  he was  in bona  fide need of the suit premises, but passed  a decree  for eviction  on the  ground that  the Appellant had  committed  default  in  payment  of  rent  as contemplated under  section 12(3)(b)  of the  Act. On appeal these findings  were confirmed  by the  Additional  District Judge. The  Appellant filed  a Writ  Petition  in  the  High Court, which  was dismissed. In the appeal by special leave, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that payments of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

rents were  made with  substantial regularity  and  that  no decree for  eviction could  be passed against the Appellant. The  contention   of  the  Respondent  was  that  there  was irregularity in  the  deposit  of  the  rent  and  that  the appellant was  liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent. 462      Disposing of the appeal this Court, ^      HELD: 1.  Section 12(3)(a)  of  the  Act  will  not  be applicable since  there was  dispute regarding the amount of standard rent.  Section 12(3)(b)  is applicable, which makes it clear that no decree for eviction can be passed in a suit for recovery  of possession  on the ground of non-payment of standard rent  or  permitted  increases  instituted  by  the landlord against  the tenant,  if on  the first  day of  the hearing of  the suit  or on  or before  such a  date, as the court may  fix, the  tenant pays  or deposits  in court  the standard  rent   and  permitted   increases  then   due  and thereafter continues  to pay  or deposits in court regularly such rent  and permitted  increases till the suit is finally decided and  also pays  the costs of the suit as directed by the court. [466E-F]      2. As  ordered by  the Trial  Court, the  monthly  rent should  have  been  deposited  on  the  fifth  day  of  each succeeding month. There were a few defaults committed by the Appellant varying  from 2  to 3  days into  a maximum  of 23 days. On  the other  hand, rent  for most  of the months had been deposited  in advance. In the circumstances of the case the Appellant  had been  depositing the rent with reasonable punctuality and can be regarded as having deposited the rent ’regularly’ as  contemplated in  Section 12(3)(b)  and it is incorrect to  say that exact or mathematical punctuality was required in  the  deposit  of  rent  by  a  tenant  to  take advantage of  the provisions  of Section  12(3)(b). [467G-H; 468A-C]      (Mranalini B Shah and another v. Bapalal Mohanlal Shah, [1980] 4 S.C.C. 251, followed.      [The decree  for eviction  was set  aside and the court directed that  the suit  filed by the Respondent shall stand dismissed.]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1449 of 1987.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  25.2.1987  of  the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 6028 of 1986.      V.M. Tarkunde and S.C. Birla for the Appellant.      V.B. Joshi and Janardan for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 463      KANIA, J.  This is  an Appeal  by a  tenant  against  a decree for  eviction passed  against him  at the instance of the Respondent  who is  the landlord.  The Appeal  has  been preferred pursuant  to Special  Leave granted  by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.      In  view  of  the  short  controversy  before  us,  the relevant facts can be very briefly stated.      The Appellant  took the  tenancy  of  the  premises  in question, namely,  shop in  a house  bearing  CTS  No.  168, Bhavant Peth,  Satara City  in Maharashtra on an agreed rent of Rs.22  per month.  Apart from  the rent, a sum of Rs.2.20 per month  was payable  on account  of Education  Cess.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

Respondent purchased  the said house on December 3, 1976 and on the  next day  the  previous  owner  of  the  said  house informed the  Appellant that  the property  was sold  to the Respondent and  the tenancy  was attorned and further stated that the  Appellant was  in arrears of rent from 1.6.1976 to 30.11.1976. On  January 11,  1977, the  Appellant received a notice from  the Respondent dated January 10, 1977 demanding the arrears of rent from the Appellant. On January 17, 1977, the Appellant  sent a  money order to the Respondent for the arrears of  rent but the money order stated that the payment was being  made to the Respondent as the Muktyar or agent of the previous  landlord. This  money order was refused by the Respondent. On  February 14/15,  1977, the Appellant filed a standard rent  application in the Trial Court for fixing the standard rent  of the  premises under  the provisions of the Bombay Rents,  Hotel and  Lodging House  Rates Control  Act, 1947 which we shall refer to hereinafter as "the Bombay Rent Act". The  Respondent filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 123  of  1977,  in  the  Court  of  Civil  Judge  Junior Division, Satara  claiming arrears of rent and possession of the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement as contemplated under Section 12(3) and Section 13(1) respectively of the Bombay Rent Act. The issues  in the  said suit were framed by the Trial Court on September 12, 1978, and that is accepted as the first day of  hearing   of  the  suit.  Although  the  Appellant  made applications  on   24-12-1977,  15-1-1980,   9-12-1980   and 27-1-1981 for  fixation of  interim rent,  the  Trial  Court passed an  order only on January 27, 1981 fixing the interim rent at Rs.20 per month and gave directions to the Appellant to pay  all the  arrears of  rent on  or before February 10, 1981. The Appellant deposited all the arrears of rent at the rate fixed  by the  Court for  the period  from 1-6-1976  to 31-1-1981 in  the Trial  Court on January 29, 1981, that is, within two  days from the date of order fixing the rent. The Appellant thereafter  deposited the  rent in the Trial Court as set out in the following manner: 464 ____________________________________________________________ ’C’No.     Receipt      Date        Amount       Particulars            No. ____________________________________________________________ 1269         1094       29-1-81       1158.60      June 1976                                                  to Feb’1981 1416       1208       25-2-81         20.00      March, 1981   13         12        2-4-81         60.00      April, May,                                                  June, 1981  409         366        8-7-81         60.00      July,Aug.,                                                  Sept’, 1981  849        755       5-10-81         60.00      October,                                                  November                                                  Dec., 1981 1322       1166       11-1-82         60.00      January,                                                    February,                                                  March, 1982   54         51        8-4-82         60.00      April, May,                                                    June,1982 682        630       10-8-82          60.00      July,August                                                  Sept, 1982 1153       1055       1-11-82         60.00      October,                                                    November,                                                  Dec., 1982 1728       1596        7-2-83         40.00      January,                                                    February,                                                  1983

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

107        100       12-4-83         60.00      March,April                                                    May  1983 528        484       14-7-83          40.00       June,July,                                                   1983 998        910       28-9-83          40.00      August,                                                  Sept., 1983 1213       1203       7-11-83         40.00      October,                                                    Nov.1983, 1689       1603       11-1-84         20.00      December,                                                  1983 1635       1551        5-1-84         20.00      January,                                                  1984 2079       1952       15-3-84        100.00      February to                                                    June,1984 354        316       26-6-84         120.00      July to                                                  Dec,1984  434        256      18-12-84        240.00      January to                                                  Dec’, 1985  456        290      17-12-85        240.00      January to                                                  Dec’, 1986      The Trial  Court held that the Respondent had failed to prove that he was in bona fide need of the suit premises but passed a decree for 465 eviction on  the ground  that the  Appellant  had  committed default in  payment of  rent as  contemplated under  section 12(3)(b) of  the Bombay  Rent  Act.  On  an  appeal  by  the Appellant, these  findings were  confirmed by the Additional District Judge,  Satare and  the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the  Appellant filed  a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 6028 of 1986, in the High Court of Bombay. This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court  by a  short  order  taking  the  view  that  the Appellant was  in  arrears  and  had  committed  default  in payment of  rent and  there was no reason for the High Court to interfere  with the  decisions of  the courts  below. The present Appeal is directed against this decision.      It was  submitted by  Mr. Tarkunde, learned counsel for the Appellant  that the  Appellant had deposited well within time the  entire arrears of rent on the basis of the interim rent fixed  by the  Trial Court and had thereafter deposited the amount  of  accruing  rent  in  court  with  substantial regularity and in view of this, no decree for eviction could be passed  against the  Appellant under  the  provisions  of Section 12(3)(b)  of the Bombay Rent Act read with the other provisions contained  in Section  12. It  was, on  the other hand, contended  by  Mr.  Joshi,  learned  counsel  for  the Respondent, that  there was  irregularity in  the deposit of the interim  rent after  the initial  deposit of arrears was made by  the Appellant,  and he  was  not  entitled  to  the protection of  the Bombay  Rent Act  and was  liable  to  be evicted on  the ground of default in payment of the rent. In order to appreciate these arguments, we have to consider the relevant provisions  of Section  12 of  the Bombay Rent Act. The material portion of Section 12 runs as follows:           "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) No  suit for  recovery of  possession shall be           instituted by  a landlord  against tenant  on  the           ground of  non-payment of  the  standard  rent  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

         permitted increases  due, until  the expiration of           one month  next after  notice in  writing  of  the           demand of the standard rent or permitted increases           has been  served upon  the tenant  in  the  manner           provided  in   section  106  of  the  Transfer  of           Property Act, 1882. 466           (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.                x    x    x    x    x    x"      The provision  of Section  12(1) has  already been  set out. In  the present  case, the  provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (3)  of Section  12 have no application as there was a  dispute regarding  the amount of standard rent. Hence the provisions which we have to consider are those contained in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act.  This clause  read in  the context  makes it clear that no  decree for  eviction can  be passed  in a  suit for recovery of  possession on  the  ground  of  non-payment  of standard rent  or  permitted  increases  instituted  by  the landlord against  the tenant,  if on  the first  day of  the hearing of  the suit  or on  or before  such a  date, as the court may  fix, the  tenant pays  or deposits  in court  the standard  rent   and  permitted   increases  then   due  and thereafter continues  to pay  or deposits in court regularly such rent  and permitted  increases till the suit is finally decided and  also pays  the costs of the suit as directed by the court.      In the  present case,  both sides accepted the position that the Appellant had deposited in Court the entire arrears of rent  on the basis of interim rent fixed well within time as directed by the court. It is common ground that until the application of  standard rent  made by the tenant is finally decided, the  interim  rent  fixed  by  the  court  must  be regarded as the standard rent. The only question, therefore, is whether  it can  be said  that the  Appellant, after  the first deposit,  of the arrears of rent, continued to deposit in court the rent and the permit- 467 ted increases  "regularly" till the suit was finally decided as contemplated  under  Section  12(3)(b)  of  the  Act.  In Mranalini B.  Shah and  another v.  Bapalal  Mohanlal  Shah, [1980] 4  S.C.C. 251  a Division  Bench of  this  Court  was called upon  to consider  the  very  provisions  of  Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act which fall for consideration in the  present  case  before  us.  In  dealing  with  these provisions, Sarkaria,  J., speaking  for the Court stated as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

follows:           "The above  enunciation,  clarifies  beyond  doubt           that the provisions of clause (b) of Section 12(3)           are mandatory,  and must be strictly complied with           by the  tenant during  the pendency of the suit or           appeal if the landlord’s claim for eviction on the           ground of  default in  payment of  rent is  to  be           defeated. The  word ’regularly’  in clause  (b) of           Section 12(3)  has a  significance of  its own. It           enjoins  a  payment  or  tender  characterised  by           reasonable punctuality,  that is  to say, one made           at regular  times  or  intervals.  The  regularity           contemplated may  not be  a punctuality, of clock-           like  precision   and  exactitude,   but  it  must           reasonably conform  with substantial  proximity to           the sequence  of times  or intervals  at which the           rent falls due. Thus, where the rent is payable by           the month,  the tenant  must, if he wants to avail           of the  benefit of  the latter part of clause (b),           tender or  pay every  month as it falls due, or at           his discretion  in  advance.  If  he  persistently           defaults during the pendency of the suit or appeal           in paying  the rent,  such as  where he pays it at           irregular intervals  of 2  or 3  or 4 months-as is           the case  before us-the Court has no discretion to           treat what  were manifestly irregular payments, as           substantial compliance  with the  mandate of  this           clause, irrespective  of the fact that by the time           the judgment  was pronounced  all the  arrears had           been cleared by the tenant."      If we  examine  the  chart  of  deposits  made  by  the Appellant in the court set out earlier, it shows that during the period  29-1-1981 to  17-12-85 the  Appellant  has  been depositing the  rents in  court for two or three months at a time. In respect of some months, there are undoubtedly a few defaults in the sense that the deposits have been made a few days later  than directed.  In this  connection, it  must be noticed  that  Trial  Court  directed  that  in  respect  of accruing rent  after the  order for  deposit of  arrears was passed, the  monthly rent must be deposited on the fifth day of each  month which,  it is undisputed, must mean the fifth day of each succeeding month. On this basis there are 468 undoubtedly a few defaults committed by the Appellant in the sense that  in respect  of the  first  month  to  which  the deposit relates,  there is  some delay amounting to from two or three  days upto  a maximum of 23 days. But, on the other hand, the  rent for most of the months has been deposited in advance. In these circumstances, applying the principle laid down in  the aforesaid  decision referred  to, we are of the view that  the rent has been deposited by the Appellant with reasonable punctuality and hence the Appellant/tenant can be regarded  as   having  deposited  the  rent  ’regularly’  as contemplated in  clause (b)  of subsection (3) of Section 12 of the  Bombay Rent  Act. We are of the view that the courts below were  in error  in  taking  the  view  that  exact  or mathematical punctuality was required in the deposit of rent by a  tenant to  take advantage of the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.      In these  circumstances, we  set aside  the decree  for eviction passed  by the courts below and order that the suit filed by the Respondent shall stand dismissed.      So far  as the  costs of  this  Appeal  are  concerned, however, that  is a  different question. It has been pointed out to us by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

Appellant has  been persisting in his unjustified stand that the Respondent  was not  his  landlord  in  respect  of  the premises in  question and  on that  ground  he  opposed  the withdrawal by  the Respondent of the amount deposited by the Appellant in  the Trial  Court. We agree that this stand was unjustified. Mr.  Tarkunde, however,  made it clear that the Appellant  unconditionally   accepts  the   title   of   the Respondent to  the suit building and also accepts that he is the landlord  of the  Appellant and  that the  Respondent is entitled to  recover the  amount of rent from the Appellant. If any  rent remains deposited by the Appellant in the Trial Court, the  Respondent shall  be at  liberty to withdraw the same forthwith.      In these circumstances, we direct that the entire costs throughout shall be borne and paid by the Appellant. G.N.                                Appeal disposed of. 469