HARNAMSING LALSING Vs. GANGARAM ITCHHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application raises an interesting question of protection under sec. 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act in case of a tenant in whose case the dispute about standard rent raised by him in the reply to the notice under sec. 12(2) has been resolved by the Court only at the time of the judgment and who is not in arrears on that day. Both the lower Courts had held that the present case was covered by sec. 12(3)(a) of the Act. The lower appellate Court had further held in the alternative that the tenant was not entitled to protection under sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act. On that basis as both the Courts have passed a decree of eviction against the tenant the tenant has filed the present revision application.

(2.) Turning First to the question of sec. 12(3)(a) of the Act It is clear that in the present case the most important Ingredient of that section viz. that there must be no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted Increases Is not fulfilled. The lower Courts have only considered the later part of the tenants reply at Ex. 39 where he had sought from the plaintiff particulars about standard rent and permitted increases and on that basis it was held that the tenant had not raised any bona fide dispute at all by merely seeking such particulars. If we turn to the reply at Ex. 39 the tenant had specifically raised two main disputes (1) that the Chawk having been taken away from him his leased area was reduced and to that extent there was an increase of rent and (2) that the monthly rent of Rs. 12/which the landlord in his notice stated to be exclusive of water tax and latrine tax was Inclusive of the said two taxes. It is true that ultimately In both the Courts the tenant was not able to establish that the Chawk had been taken away from his possession. He however succeeded in proving the second part of the dispute. The trial Court held on issue No. 4 that Rs. 12/was the standard rent inclusive of all taxes. It further held that as the water connection had been discontinued the plaintiff was entitled to be paid only Rs. 10/per month from the date of the suit till he restored water connection to the defendants. It is clear therefore that not only the tenant had raised the dispute about the standard rent and permitted increases but also succeeded in getting a decision in his favour on the main part of the dispute that the standard rent of Rs. 12/was inclusive of taxes and not exclusive of taxes as contended by the landlord. Both the Courts therefore obviously erred in holding that sec. 12(3)(a) of the Act applied to the facts of the present case.

(3.) The material question which still remains to be considered is whether the tenant was protected under sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act. The trial Court had not gone into this question on its finding as regards the applicability of sec. 12(3)(b) as no subsequent deposit would be of any avail to the tenant. The lower appellate Court however held that the tenant was not protected under sec. 12(3)(b) on two grounds :-