RASIKLAL NARMADASHANKER TRIVEDI Vs. DILIPKUMAR VASANTBHAI KOTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendant for recovering possession of the suit premises on the ground that the defendant had been in arrears of rent. Indisputably he had been in arrears of rent for more than six months. The defendant in his defence denied the plaintiffs claim. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs claim was governed by sec. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act and that the defendant was not ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent because he had not paid to the plaintiffs the arrears of rent within the time stipulated by sec. 12(3)(a). He therefore passed against the defendant decree for possession.

(2.) The defendant challenged that decree in the District Court. The learned appellate Judge held that sec. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act did not govern the present suit because education cess which was a part of the rent was not payable monthly. He therefore took the view that the plaintiffs claim was governed by see. 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. However he held that the defendant had not complied with the terms of sec. 12(3)(b) and that therefore he had rendered himself liable for eviction. In that view of the matter he dismissed the appeal. It is that appellate decree which is challenged before me by the defendant.

(3.) The only question which has been raised by Mr. S. M. Shah who appears on behalf of the defendant is whether the defendant had qualified for protection under sec. 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. In GANPAT LADHA V. SASHIKANT VISHNU (1978) 19 G.L.R. 502 it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the tenant must comply with the conditions set out in sec. 12(3)(b) in order to defeat the landlords claim for eviction. If he does not fulfil the conditions set out in sec. 12(3)(b) he cannot claim the protection of that section and in that event there being no other protection available to him a decree for eviction must be passed against him. It has also been laid down in that decision that sec. 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act does not create any discretionary jurisdiction for the Court. It provides protection to the tenant on certain conditions and those conditions must be strictly observed by the tenant who seeks the benefit of the section. Lastly it has been observed that if the statutory provisions do not go far enough to relieve the hardship of the tenant the remedy lies with the legislature and not with the Courts.