Revisional jurisdiction and rent protection: abandoned pleas cannot be revived, and interim rent does not replace standard rent.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC was confined to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material illegality, so a contention expressly abandoned before the appellate court could not be revived in revision. Under the Bombay Rent Act, deposit of interim rent under Section 11(3) did not amount to payment of standard rent, and it did not satisfy Section 12(1), Section 12(3)(b), or the Explanation to Section 12 unless the tenant had made the required timely application and remained ready and willing to pay standard rent. Relief against forfeiture was also unavailable in a tenancy determined otherwise than by forfeiture, leaving no independent equitable discretion to refuse possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a contention expressly abandoned before the appellate court could be revived in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the tenant's deposit of interim rent under Section 11(3) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 satisfied the requirements of Section 12(1), Section 12(3)(b), or the Explanation to Section 12 so as to bar eviction. (iii) Whether, apart from the Act, the court had any discretion to refuse possession to the landlord where the tenancy had been determined otherwise than by forfeiture.

Issue (i): Whether a contention expressly abandoned before the appellate court could be revived in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The revisional power was held to be confined to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Since the challenge to the fixation of standard rent and the related plea of readiness and willingness had been expressly abandoned before the appellate court, the appellate court committed no jurisdictional error or illegality in not deciding them. A point not urged below could not be converted into a ground for revision merely by characterising it as an error of law.

Conclusion: The abandoned contentions could not be revived in revision and were not entertainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant's deposit of interim rent under Section 11(3) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 satisfied the requirements of Section 12(1), Section 12(3)(b), or the Explanation to Section 12 so as to bar eviction.

Analysis: Standard rent under the Act was distinct from interim rent specified pending final determination of the standard-rent application. Deposit of the interim amount did not amount to payment of standard rent under Section 12(3)(b). The Explanation to Section 12 operated only to deem readiness and willingness for the purpose of Section 12(1), and only where the tenant applied within the statutory time after notice. Since no such timely application was made, and the tenant had not paid the standard rent due up to the final decision, the statutory protection was unavailable.

Conclusion: The tenant did not satisfy Section 12(1), Section 12(3)(b), or the Explanation to Section 12, and eviction was not barred on that basis.

Issue (iii): Whether, apart from the Act, the court had any discretion to refuse possession to the landlord where the tenancy had been determined otherwise than by forfeiture.

Analysis: Relief against forfeiture was treated as confined to forfeiture cases and not to tenancies determined by notice to quit or other non-forfeiture modes. In such cases, once the tenant failed to obtain protection under the Rent Act, the landlord's ordinary right to possession revived. The Act was held not to create an extra-statutory equitable discretion to deny possession where its conditions were not met.

Conclusion: No independent discretion existed to refuse possession to the landlord in a non-forfeiture case where the tenant failed to obtain statutory protection.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the tenant could not reopen abandoned issues, could not bring the case within the statutory protections against eviction, and could not rely on any general discretionary power to resist possession.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional jurisdiction, a ground not urged before the appellate court cannot ordinarily be revived unless the appellate order itself suffers from jurisdictional error or illegality, and a tenant resisting eviction after termination of tenancy otherwise than by forfeiture must bring the case strictly within the statutory protection against eviction; interim rent deposited pending fixation of standard rent does not by itself satisfy the requirement of payment of standard rent.

---