TARABEN SAKARLAL SHAH Vs. SHAH JETHALAL MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [The Hon'ble Court after narrating the facts of the case observed:]

(2.) The plaintiff had based her relief for possession on two grounds. One was for bona fide and reasonable requirement which. I have already considered at great length and another on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent exceeding six months by the defendant on the date of the suit. It is not disputed that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1.9 Thus on the date of the suit he was in arrears of rent for 8 months. On the date of notice also the defendant was in arrears of rent exceeding six months. The learned Advocate for the opponent however invited my attention to the reply given by the defendant to the notice received by him wherein he had raised a dispute about the standard rent. He therefore urged that once there was a dispute about the standard rent between the parties even if the defendant had not paid arrears of rent within one month from the receipt of notice by him his case would not be covered by clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 12 of the Act if he had raised a dispute within one month from the receipt of notice by him. In such a case Mr. Bhatt urged that the defendants case would be governed by sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act and as the defendant had paid all arrears of rent before the decree was passed by the court of first instance and also had paid all arrears of rent during the pendency of the appeal the defendant could be said to have sufficiently complied with the provisions of sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act. It is true that the defendant had taken a plea in his reply to the notice received by him from the petitioner that the rent charged by the petitioner was in excess of the standard rent. However if the evidence of the defendant is read it would be clear that the dispute raised by him was not bona fide. The only explanation offered by him for raising this dispute was that in view of his income the rent charged from him was excessive. Now the standard rent of the premises does not depend on the income earned by a tenant. What is standard rent is already defined in the Rent Control Act and I need not refer to the same here. It is not the case of the defendant that the petitioner had let the suit premises at lesser rent before it was taken on rent by him. Thus if the defendant merely in order to avoid his liability to pay the arrears of rent exceeding six months raised a dispute of standard rent which he cannot substantiate could it be said that his case would be excluded from the operation of sec. 12(3)(a) of the Act ? In my opinion merely raising a dispute of standard rent which cannot be substantiated would not be enough to take out the case from the purview of sec. 12(3)(a) of the Act. If the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent within one month from the date of receipt of notice by him and if it is found from evidence on record that the dispute about the standard rent raised by him in reply to the notice was not bona fide it cannot be said that the defendant was ready and willing to pay the rent and in such a case the defendant would not be protected by sec. 12(1) of the Rent Act. In such a case a decree for eviction is bound to follow even if after the suit is filed he pays all the arrears of rent. In the case of Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal v. Dalichand Virchand Shroff A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 1109 it was observed

(3.) Mr. Bhatt however invited my attention to the observations of my learned brother T.U. Mehta J. in . wherein he held that :