http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MRS.  MANORAMA S. MASUREKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MRS.  DHANLAXMI G. SHAH AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/08/1966

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1967 AIR 1078            1967 SCR  (1) 135  CITATOR INFO :  R          1968 SC1109  (11)  RF         1973 SC 566  (10)  RF         1991 SC 711  (13)

ACT: Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act  (57 of 1947), s. 12(1) and (3) (a)-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The  tenant of a flat was in arrears of rent for  more  than six  months.   The landlord served a notice  on  the  tenant demanding  the rent.  The tenant did not pay it  within  one month of the notice, but tendered it after the expiry of the month.  The landlord refused to receive it and filed a  suit for  eviction under s. 12(3) (a) of the Bombay Rents,  Hotel and  Lodging  House  Rates Control Act,  1947.   The  tenant claimed the protection of s. 12(1) of the Act on the  ground that  she was ready -and willing to pay the rent before  the institution of the suit. HELD  : Under s. 12(3) (a), the landlord is vested with  the right  to recover possession of the premises if the rent  is in  arrears for six months or more, the tenant  neglects  to pay  it  until after the expiry of one  month  after  notice demanding the rent and other conditions of sub-s.(3) (a) are saitisfied.   This right cannot be defeated by showing  that the  tenant was ready and willing to pay the rent after  the default but before  the institution of the suit.  In a  case falling within sub-s. (3) (a), the tenant must be dealt with under  its  special  provisions  and  he  cannot  claim  any protection  from  eviction under the general  provisions  of sub-s.  (1):  and the court was bound to pass a  decree  for eviction. [137 E, F] Bhaiya   Punjalal   Dhagwanddin  v.  Dave   Bhagwat   Prosad Prabhuprasad, [19631 3 S.C.R. 312, followed. Mohanlal  v. Maheshwari Mills Ltd. (1962) 3 Guj.   L.R.  574 and Ambala, v. Babaldas, (1962) 3 Guj.  L.R. 625, overrules.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 469 of 1966.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and decree  dated November 25, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 1579 of 1962. S. G. Patwardhan and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant S.T. Desai and K. L. Hathi, for respondent No.1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The question arising in this appeal by  special leave is whether in a case falling under sub-s.(3)(a) of  s. 12  of  the  Bombay Rents, Hotel  and  Lodging  House  Rates Control  Act, 1947 (Act No. 57 of 1947), a tenant can  claim protection  from  eviction  by  showing  his  readiness  and willingness  to pay the arrears of rent before the  date  of the institution of the suit.  The appellant’s husband was  a tenant of a flat The rent was in arrears 136 for a period of more than six months.  On December 22, 1956, the  landlord  served a notice on the tenant  demanding  the rent.  The tenant neglected to pay the rent within one month of  the notice.  On January 11, 1957, he died.  On  February 4,  1957,  the  appellant sent the arrears of  rent  to  the landlord by money order, but the landlord refused to  accept the  payment.  On February 5, 1957, the landlord  instituted the  present suit for eviction of the appellant.  The  trial Court  decreed  the suit.  The appellant  filed  a  revision application   before  the  Bombay  High  Court,   but   this application was dismissed by the High Court. It  is  to  be noticed that the rent was in  arrears  for  a period  of  more than six months.  The tenant  neglected  to make payment of the arrears of rent within one month of  the service  of the notice by the landlord under sub-s.  (2)  of s.12.  The rent was payable by the month, and there  was  no dispute  regarding  the amount of the rent.  The  case  was, therefore,  precisely  covered by sub-s. (3)(a)  of  s.  12. Nevertheless, the appellant submitted that as she was  ready and  willing to pay the rent before the institution  of  the suit, she could claim protection under sub-s. (1) of s.  12. She  submitted that the decided cases support  this  conten- tion.   In  Mohanlal  v. Maheshwari  Mills  Ltd.(’),  P.  N. Bhagwati,  J. held that even in a case falling under  sub-s. (3) (a), a tenant could, by paying or showing his  readiness and  willingness  to  pay the arrears  of  rent  before  the institution  of  the suit, claim  protection  from  eviction under  sub-s.  (1).  A similar opinion was  expressed  by  a Divisional  Bench  of the Gujarat High Court in  Ambalal  v. Babaidas(2).   The judgment under appeal dissented from  the view  expressed by the Gujarat High Court.  The Bombay  High Court  held,  and, in our opinion, rightly, that in  a  case falling  under  sub-s. (3)(a), the tenant  could  not  claim protection  from  eviction  by  showing  his  readiness  and willingness  to pay the rent before the institution  of  the suit. Sub-section  (1) of s. 12 imposes a general  restriction  on the  landlord’s right to recover possession of the  premises so  long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing  to  pay the  rent and observes and performs the other conditions  of the  tenancy.  Subsection (2) of s. 12 imposes  the  further restriction  that no suit for recovery of possession on  the ground  of  non-payment of rent shall be instituted  by  the landlord until the expiration of one month after a notice in writing demanding the rent.  Sub-section (3)(a) provides for the consequences which will follow where the rent is payable by  the month, there is no dispute regarding the  amount  of rent,  the rent is in arrears for a period of six months  or more,  and  the tenant neglects to make payment  within  one month of the service of the notice under sub-s (2).  In such

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

a case, the tenant (1)  (1962) 3 Gujarat Law Reporter, 574 at pp. 618 to 62). (2)  (1962) 3 Gujarat Law Reporter 625, 644. 137 cannot claim any protection under sub-s. (1), and the  Court is  bound  to pass a decree for eviction.  At  the  material time, sub-s. (3) (a) of s. 12 read :               "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-s (2), the Court may pass a               decree  for  eviction  in any  such  suit  for               recovery of possession." The  word  "may"  in  this sub-section  has  the  effect  of "shall".    In   Bhatya   Punjalal   Bhagwanddin   v.   Dave Bhagwatprasad  Prabhuprasad(l), this Court held  that  where the requirements of sub-s. (3)(a) were satisfied, the  Court was  bound to pass a decree for eviction.  The  section  has now  been  suitably amended, and the word "shall"  has  been substituted for the word "may" by Maharashtra Act No. 14  of 1963. If the conditions of sub-s. (3)(a) are satisfied, the tenant cannot claim any protection from eviction under the Act.  By terdering the arrears of rent after the expiry of one  month from  the service of the notice under sub-s. (2), he  cannot claim  the  protection under sub-s. (1).  It  is  immaterial whether the tender was made before or after the  institution of  the suit.  In a case falling within sub-s.  (3)(a),  the tenant  must be dealt with under the special  provisions  of sub-s.  (3)(a),  and  he cannot claim  any  protection  from eviction under the general provisions of sub-s. (1). The landlord is vested with the right to recover  possession of  the premises if the rent is in arrears for a  period  of six  months  or more, "the tenant neglects to  make  payment thereof  until  the expiration of the period  of  one  month after  notice  referred  to in sub-s. (2)",  and  the  other conditions  of  sub-s.  (3)(a) are  satisfied.   This  right cannot be defeated by showing that the tenant was ready  and willing  to pay the arrears of rent after the  default,  but before  the  institution  of  the  suit.   In  effect,   the appellant  asks us to rewrite the section and to  substitute in it the following condition : "the tenant neglects to make payment  thereof  until the date of the institution  of  the suit."  It  is not possible to rewrite the  section  in  the manner suggested by the appellant. The appellant’s case fell precisely within sub-s. (3)(a) and she could not obtain immunity from eviction by tendering the rent before the institution of the suit. The appeal is dismissed with costs. V.P.S.            Appral dismissed. (1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 312,330-331. M 14 Sup. C1/66-10 138