MALGANBHAI RASULBHAI Vs. PUSHPAVADAN MANILAL DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVANI , J. - Despite general atmosphere of non-violent peaceful co-existence, sporadic clashes between the two, is the normal feature of the "legal" relations between landlord and tenant. However, the distinguishing feature of this litigation is that the battle is going on since the year 1964 almost incessantly in the fashion of cold-war skirmishes. On account of certain judicial pronouncements made by the Supreme Court when the lethal blow was about to be dealt with by the landlord and the tenants were on the brink of being vanquished, the Legislature has stepped in and has amended the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Rent Act' for short). How far this amendment has disarmed the landlord and whether it is capable of protecting the tenant in proceedings is the question at the centre of controversy between the parties. First, the facts of the litigation, which has a chequered history.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord purchased the property in question some time in June, 1963. The property is situated at Vadodara and the suit premises consist of two rear rooms on the ground floor, first floor and a loft. In the year 1964, the petitioner filed a suit for eviction against all the tenants who were occupying the property on the ground of bonafide personal requirements. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court. Similarly, the appeals filed by the petitioner were also dismissed. Thereafter, by way of another round, the petitioner issued notice dated November 22, 1968 can called upon the defendant-tenants to pay arrears of rent from June 1, 1966 to November 30, 1968. The petitioner demanded arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 110 per month plus education cess, water charges and property tax.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the landlord preferred appeal and the learned Jt. District Judge, Vadodara, allowed the same and decreed the suit against which the defendants-tenants preferred Civil Revision Application No. 1417 of 1972 in the High Court. The Civil Revision Application came up for hearing on January 12, 1977 and this Court (Coram ; A.N. Surti, J. as he then was) held that the case fell within the scope of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act and not under Section 12(3)(a); because the liability to pay the education cess was on the defendants-tenants and therefore, the decree could never have been passed under Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. The Court remanded the matter to the lower appellate Court with direction to examine the question with regard to the compliance with the requirements of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act and also indicated that the word "regularly" occurring in the section was construed by the High Court and in that light the case be examined. The lower appellate Court was also directed to decide the cross-objections filed by the tenants for fixation of the standard rent.