GIAN SINGH NAGI Vs. RANANI STEEL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's petition challenging the order dated 24.7.1996 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant, being Appeal No.90/1996. The tenant filed the appeal challenging the decree passed by the Judge of the Small Causes Court dated 22.12.1995 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1147/3525/1981.

(2.) R .A.E. and R. Suit No.1117/3525/1981 was filed by the present petitioner-landlord seeking a decree of eviction against the respondent-tenant on the ground that he had committed default in payment of rent. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the tenant had committed default in payment of the monthly rent. However, the Appellate Court reversed the Judgment. The petitioner-plaintiff in the plaint contended that the respondent is his tenant in relation to the suit premises which is Shop No.4. The plaintiff averred that the tenancy was monthly and the monthly rent was Rs.145.72. It was further stated that as the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1st October to March 1979. The notice was issued on 7th April 1979 and it was received by the tenant on 14th April 1979. The tenant neither replied the said notice so disputing his liability to pay the amount claimed, nor did he make an application for fixation of standard rent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice. The respondent-tenant filed his written statement. In the written statement, he admitted that the monthly rent agreed was Rs.145.72. The tenant also admitted that he received the notice on 14th April 1979. It was the case of the tenant that as an amount of Rs.5,450.73 towards rent and an amount of Rs.496.25 towards cost were paid to the landlord on 24th September 1981, the suit is not maintainable.

(3.) NOW , it is to be seen that perusal of the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act shows that a suit for eviction of a tenant cannot be instituted by the landlord unless he issues a notice in writing demanding from the tenant the amount of rent. Perusal of the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) further shows that in order to attract application of that provision, the tenant should be in arrears for a period of six months or more. In the present case, admittedly, the tenant had not paid rent from 1.10.1978. On 31.3.1979, when the month of March 1979 closed, the tenant was in arrears of rent for six months. The rent for the month of March 1979 became payable on 1.4.1979 and therefore the landlord became entitled to demand the rent. In so far as the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Application No.1424 of 1962, which has been relied by the Appellate Court, is concerned, the observation of this Court that in that case rent was payable until the expiry of the month of September 1961, was made in the facts and circumstances of that case. It appears from the judgment that there was a contract of tenancy between the tenant and the landlord and, though the Court does not specifically observe in the Judgment, it appears that, according that contract the rent for the closing month was payable during the entire succeeding month and, therefore, the Court has observed that the rent could have been paid by the tenant during the entire subsequent month and therefore the landlord was not justified in demanding the rent before the close of the succeeding month. The judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No.1146/72 referred to above, is a judgment clearly in point. It is clearly laid down that the rent becomes due at the close of the period in respect of which rent is to be paid. It is further observed that the notice could not be challenged as premature if on the date on which the notice is received, the rent has become due to the landlord. I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down by this Court in Special Civil Application No.1146/72. In this view of the matter, the order of the Appellate Court, allowing the appeal on this point is clearly illegal.