RAJKAMAL ENTERPRISES Vs. MANUBHAI BHIKHUBHAI MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a tenant could be afforded statutory umbrella from being evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent due to financial crunch or monetary disability or non-availability of requisite fund, is the sole but interesting question which has come up for consideration and adjudication invoking correct against the judgment and order passed by District Court, Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1986. interpretation and applicability of provisions of Sec. 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("Bombay Rent Act" for short) in this revision under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) The petitioners are the original defendants-tenants and respondents are the original plaintiffs-landlords. For the sake of convenience and brevity, they are hereinafter referred to as landlords and tenants. The suit shop No. 5 situated on the ground floor of building known as Vishwakarma Bhuvan situated on Halar Road, Valsad bearing Municipal Census No. 2334/A/2 ("demise premises" for short) came to be given on lease to the tenants on 1-2-1977 at a monthly rent of Rs. 175.00. Liability to pay all taxes was on the part of the tenants over and above the agreed rent.

(3.) The landlords instituted a legal battle by filling Regular Civil Suit No. 242 of 1982 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Valsad against the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent after giving notice under Sec. 12(2). The tenants were in arrears of rent for more than six months. The tenants contested the suit inter alia contending that they were ready and willing to pay rent and there was no case for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances, dismissed the suit for possession on 30-9-1986 on the ground that there was no case for Sec. 13(1)(a) and the tenants were entitled to protection of Sec. 12(3)(b). The trial Court held that the entire rent was not payable by month and there was no case of Sec. 12(3)(a). Moreover, the tenants had deposited the arrears of rent during the pendency of the suit and had fulfilled other conditions of Sec. 12(3)(b). Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit for possession.