Mandatory eviction for unpaid rent where no dispute over standard rent was raised in time under rent control law

A tenant loses statutory protection under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, where monthly rent is unpaid, the arrears exceed six months, no dispute exists about standard rent or permitted increases, and payment is not made within one month of notice under section 12(2). In that situation, the court must pass a decree for eviction. A dispute over standard rent must be raised within the prescribed time to avoid this mandatory result, and section 12(3)(b) applies only where clause (a) does not govern because it concerns regular deposits in court. The tenants therefore remained outside the protection of section 12(3)(a).

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenants were liable to eviction under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for failure to pay arrears of rent within one month of notice when there was no dispute regarding standard rent or permitted increases.

Analysis: The statutory scheme protected a tenant only so long as standard rent and permitted increases were paid or the tenant remained ready and willing to pay them. Where rent was payable monthly, no dispute existed regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, the arrears exceeded six months, and payment was not made within one month after the notice under section 12(2), section 12(3)(a) required the Court to pass a decree for eviction. The earlier decision relied on by the Court had already settled that a dispute as to standard rent must be raised within the prescribed time to avoid the mandatory consequence under section 12(3)(a). The later reliance on section 12(3)(b) was misplaced because that provision dealt with regular deposit in court in cases where clause (a) did not apply.

Conclusion: The tenants were not entitled to protection under section 12(3)(a), and the decree for eviction was rightly made against them.

---