Timely rent tender after notice defeats eviction, and supervisory jurisdiction cannot replace an appeal on merits.

A tenant does not incur eviction under notice-based rent control provisions merely because the landlord does not receive payment within the period; the decisive question is whether the tenant neglected to pay after notice. Where the tenants remitted the arrears by money order within the statutory time, that conduct negatived neglect and the eviction ground under Section 12(3)(a) failed, with Section 12(3)(b) also inapplicable. The commentary also states that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is narrow and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal; interference is justified only for grave legal error or injustice, not for reappreciation of evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenants could be held to have neglected to make payment of rent within one month after notice so as to attract eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the appellate court's findings and restoring the trial court's decree.

Issue (i): Whether the tenants could be held to have neglected to make payment of rent within one month after notice so as to attract eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Analysis: The statutory condition for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) is not mere non-receipt of payment by the landlord within the prescribed period, but a neglect by the tenant to make payment after notice. The tenants dispatched a money order within the statutory period after service of notice, and the arrears covered the amount due. On these facts, the conduct of the tenants could not be characterised as neglect to pay. Once the arrears were tendered in the manner and within the time contemplated by the Act, the foundation for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) failed, and the alternative provision in Section 12(3)(b) was also not attracted.

Conclusion: The tenants did not neglect to make payment within the meaning of Section 12(3)(a), and eviction was not warranted under Section 12(3)(a) or Section 12(3)(b).

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the appellate court's findings and restoring the trial court's decree.

Analysis: The power under Article 227 is supervisory and is to be exercised within narrow limits. It is not an unrestricted appellate power to reappreciate evidence and correct every alleged error. Interference is justified only where there is grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, or resulting grave injustice. In the present matter, the High Court exceeded those limits by reappraising the evidence and reversing the appellate court on merits as though it were a regular appellate forum.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in exercising Article 227 jurisdiction in the manner adopted by it.

Final Conclusion: The tenants were not liable to eviction on the ground of arrears, and the appellate court's decree in their favour stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: For eviction on the ground of arrears under a notice-based rent control provision, the decisive question is whether the tenant neglected to make payment within the statutory period after notice, and a timely tender or remittance negatives such neglect; supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal on facts and law.

---