DATTU SUBHANA PANHALKAR Vs. GAJANAN VITHOBA BOBHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises important questions as to the construction of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act 57 of 1947 ). The Special Civil Application was originally heard by a single Judge. He referred it to a Division Bench and the Division Bench has referred it for decision to a Full Bench upon two Questions which are as follows:--"1. Whether in a proceeding to which Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, would otherwise apply, the tenant-defendant can prove that a dispute about standard rent exists without following the procedure laid down in Explanation I to Section 12?

(2.) CAN he then also take the defence that Section 12 (3) (a) does not apply and Section 12 (3) (b) applies?" Since two specific questions have thus been referred but not the whole petition it is really unnecessary to consider the case upon the facts but it will tend to an understanding of the questions that have been referred if we briefly set out the circumstances under which the reference arose. 2. The petitioner is the landlord of a house in Kolhapur. On 1st October 1961 he let it out to Gajanan the respondent No. 1. The agreed rent was Rs. 28/- per month, comprised of Rs. 25/-as rent plus Rs. 3/- as taxes of the Kolhapur Municipality. The 1st respondent failed to pay the rent from December 1963 to 31st May 1965. On that date the landlord gave notice under Section 12 (2) of the Rent Act calling upon him to pay the rent or to deliver possession on termination of the tenancy by the end of June 1965. The 1st respondent replied to the notice on 8th June 1965. Though the reply had been referred to in the judgments of the Courts below and throughout the proceedings a copy of it was not before us and with the consent of counsel we have taken a copy of the translation of that reply on record. The 1st" respondent asserted that the entire amount had been paid to the petitioner but that the petitioner had not issued any rent receipts after December 1963. He also alleged that the rent of Rs. 28/-per month was exorbitant and that he would get standard rent determined. He alleged that the premises should not be worth more than Rs. 8/- per month in rent. He also asked what was the standard rent under Section 21 (Sic : Section 11) of the Rent Act. There were other grounds upon which the petitioner had also moved for the eviction of the 1st respondent on the grounds of waste in respect of the Premises let and of being a nuisance to the neighbourhood under Section 108 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act, but with these grounds we are not concerned in this reference. Suffice it to say that they have been concurrently negatived by all the courts with the result that only the ground of nonpayment of rent remains to be considered.

(3.) AS regards standard rent the trial Court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 26/- per month, and rejected the stand of the tenant that he had paid all the rent till the end of January 1965. It however considered the fact that the tenant had paid in Court the interim standard rent fixed by the Court and also the fact that Rs. 100/- of the tenant were in deposit with the landlord and therefore the trial Court did not grant the petitioner's claim for eject-ment but merely passed a decree for Rs. 546/- as arrears of rent and directed the petitioner to withdraw the amount in deposit towards the arrears decreed.