Tenancy protection provision applied to a pending suit and barred a decree for possession in favour of the landlord.

Section 12(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was treated as a rule of decision governing a landlord's entitlement to recover possession, and it was applied to a suit pending when Part II extended to the area. The provision was read as operating at the stage when a decree for possession would otherwise be passed, rather than being confined to suits filed after the Act came into force. A landlord cannot recover possession while the tenant is ready and willing to pay standard rent, permitted increases, and comply with tenancy conditions; on the stated facts, the tenants fell within that protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first proviso to Section 50 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 made the provisions of Part II, including Section 12, applicable to pending suits; (ii) Whether Section 12(1) of the Act applied to a suit pending when Part II was extended to the area and barred a decree for possession.

Issue (i): Whether the first proviso to Section 50 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 made the provisions of Part II, including Section 12, applicable to pending suits.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 50 was treated as a saving provision dealing with the effect of repeal. It was held that the substantive part of Section 50 repealed the earlier rent laws, and the proviso could not be used to decide whether Section 12 was retrospective. The question whether the proviso operated as a general enactment extending Part II to all pending matters was therefore not ative for the appeal.

Conclusion: The Court did not rest its decision on the first proviso to Section 50.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 12(1) of the Act applied to a suit pending when Part II was extended to the area and barred a decree for possession.

Analysis: Section 12(1) was construed as enacting a rule of decision that a landlord is not entitled to recover possession so long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases and observes the tenancy conditions. The provision was held to operate when a decree for possession would otherwise be passed, and its language was not confined to suits instituted after the Act came into force in the area. Since the tenants were ready and willing to pay, they fell within the protection of the section.

Conclusion: Section 12(1) applied to the pending suit and barred a decree for possession in favour of the landlord.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the tenants were entitled to the protection of Section 12(1), and the suit for possession could not be decreed against them.

Ratio Decidendi: When a tenancy-protection provision is framed as a rule of decision and speaks to the landlord's entitlement to recover possession, it applies to pending suits at the stage of passing decree, unless the statute clearly limits its operation otherwise.

---