Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice J. C. Doshi has dismissed a tenant’s revision challenge and sustained an eviction decree in a rent-arrears dispute between a landlord and tenant, vacating the interim relief earlier granted. The matter stemmed from the landlord’s demand for alleged unpaid rent, while the tenant disputed the payable rent and sought fixation of standard rent. The Court found that to claim the statutory protection from eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, the tenant must establish that he was ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases, and that this obligation extends to interim standard rent fixed by the court; non-deposit by the first hearing results in loss of that protection.

The proceedings arose from a landlord–tenant dispute concerning residential premises situated in Junagadh district. The landlord had purchased the premises through a registered sale deed with rights to recover arrears of rent. The tenant occupied the ground floor portion at a monthly rent claimed by the landlord to be ₹100. Arrears of rent were alleged from May 1989, along with municipal and local taxes.

Also Read: Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act | Section 10(5) Notice To Person In Actual Physical Possession Mandatory Before Taking Over Land: Supreme Court

A statutory notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act was issued demanding arrears. The tenant disputed the claimed rent as excessive and applied under Section 11 of the Act for fixation of standard rent. The trial court fixed interim standard rent and directed payment of arrears and regular deposits.

The landlord instituted a suit seeking eviction on grounds including arrears of rent and other statutory grounds. The trial court decreed eviction solely on the ground of arrears, holding that the tenant failed to deposit full arrears on the first date of hearing. The appellate court dismissed the tenant’s appeal and the landlord’s cross-objections, confirming the decree. The tenant thereafter filed the present civil revision application under Section 29(2) of the Act.

The Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 11 and 12 of the Rent Act and recorded that “Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act applies to any other cases, but again starts with negative clause no decree for eviction shall be passed… if, on the first day of hearing the suit… the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due.”

It observed that “Explanation to section 12 of the Rent Act casts obligation upon the tenant to make application to the Court under sub-section (3) of section 11… and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases specified in the order made by Court.”

The Court noted that interim standard rent had been fixed and the tenant was directed to deposit arrears and continue monthly payments, but “admittedly, as on the date of first hearing, the tenant had only paid Rs.4606/- towards arrears of rent.”

Rejecting the contention that interim standard rent could not be equated with standard rent, the Court stated that “tenant cannot escape from liability to pay interim standard rent on the first date of hearing on the ground that he was not aware about what would be standard rent.”

The Court further recorded that “failing to deposit standard rent including interim standard rent on the first date of hearing… would construe that tenant was not ready and willing to deposit standard rent.”

Referring to binding precedents, the Court recorded that “Section 12(3)(b) has been construed to be a mandatory provision which must be strictly complied with.” It concluded that the concurrent findings of the courts below disclosed no perversity or illegality warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Also Read: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused Of Luring Indian Citizens Abroad With Job Offers, Allegedly Held As ‘Cyber Slaves’ In Myanmar

The Court recorded that “present Revision Application stands dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. Record and proceedings, if any, be send back to learned Trial Court concerned.”

“Civil Application No.2 of 2016 does not survive and accordingly, stand disposed of. Civil Application No.1 of 2019… is disposed of as it does not survive,” with a direction to the Registry to reconstruct the said application before disposal.

“Implementation, operation and execution of the judgment is stayed for a further period of four weeks from today” to enable the applicants to approach a higher forum.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishal C. Mehta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Harichandra K. Barot, Advocate

Case Title: Vaikunthrai Ramnikrai Vasavda (Deceased) Through Heirs v. Kasturben Dayalal Pandya (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs
Neutral Citation: NA
Case Number: R/Civil Revision Application No. 221 of 2004
Bench: Justice J. C. Doshi