YESHBAI Vs. GANPAT IRAPPA JANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference raises an important question as to the meaning of the word "dispute" in Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947). The Special Civil Application No.2353 of 1968 was originally heard by a single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench for its views" on the following point: "whether the dispute as contemplated under section 12(3) (a) must be a bona fide dispute in order to claim benefit under Section 12 (3) (a)."

(2.) Since a pure question of law, and not the entire petition, has been referred, it is unnecessary to consider the case on facts. However, with a view to understand the question that has been referred, we will briefly set out the facts giving rise to this petition.

(3.) Since prior to 1958, one Aher was a tenant of the open plot of land in dispute at the rent of Rs.12/- per month. He put up a flour mill. On February 14, 1958, by a deed of assignment, he had assigned his tenancy rights together with the running business of the flour mill to the petitioners. The Petitioners fell in arrears for more than six months, and, therefore, by notice dated January 27, 1965, the landlord called upon them to vacate the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent for over six months. By a reply the petitioners challenged the quantum of rent as well as the period from which they were liable. Nothing, however, was paid by them towards the arrears of rent, and, therefore, the respondent-landlord filed the instant suit on August 25, 1965, for recovery of possession of the suit premises as also for arrears of rent. The petitioners filed their written-statement contending inter alia that the rent demanded was excessive and requested for determination of the standard rent. By the time issues were framed on December 10, 1965, the petitioners deposited all the arrears of rent. The trial Court found that the agreed rent of Rs.12/- p.m. was the standard rent of the suit premises. It, however, found that the notice to quit was not valid on the ground that excessive renter was claimed therein. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not liable to be evicted from the premises as they were ready and willing to pay the rent, and, therefore, passed the decree only for arrears of rent and dismissed the suit for possession. The decision was challenged by the landlord in the Appellant Court. The Appellate Court inter alia held that there was no genuine dispute regarding the standard rent, and, the case fell under Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act and consequently decreed the suit for possession. The petitioners have filed this Special Civil Application challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court.