Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a tenancy held under a contract must first be determined by a valid notice to quit before a landlord can sue for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. (ii) Whether section 27 of the Act and rule 4 of the Rules convert the contractual month of tenancy from the Indian calendar to the British calendar. (iii) Whether payment of arrears within two months after institution of the suit prevents eviction or leaves the Court with discretion under section 12(3)(a) of the Act.
Issue (i): Whether a tenancy held under a contract must first be determined by a valid notice to quit before a landlord can sue for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Analysis: A landlord's right to recover possession arises on determination of the contractual tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act. Section 12 of the Act restricts that right after it has arisen, but does not create a fresh right to evict during the subsistence of the contractual tenancy. The statutory protection under section 12 operates only after the tenancy has been validly determined, and the landlord must therefore serve a notice determining the tenancy before invoking the special eviction provisions.
Conclusion: A valid determination of the tenancy by notice to quit was a necessary prerequisite, and the notice in this case was valid.
Issue (ii): Whether section 27 of the Act and rule 4 of the Rules convert the contractual month of tenancy from the Indian calendar to the British calendar.
Analysis: Section 27 and rule 4 regulate recovery of rent according to the British calendar, but they do not alter the contractual month of tenancy. The distinction between the period for which rent is recoverable and the period of tenancy was maintained. In the absence of an express provision changing the tenancy month, the contractual calendar continues to govern the tenancy period.
Conclusion: The month of tenancy was not converted to the British calendar.
Issue (iii): Whether payment of arrears within two months after institution of the suit prevents eviction or leaves the Court with discretion under section 12(3)(a) of the Act.
Analysis: Section 12(2) permits eviction proceedings after notice and default, and section 12(3)(a) requires a decree where its conditions are satisfied. Post-suit payment does not erase the tenant's liability once the statutory conditions for eviction are met. The word "may" in section 12(3)(a) was held not to confer discretion where the statutory requirements are established; discretion is specifically provided only in the separate situation covered by section 12(3)(b).
Conclusion: Payment after the suit did not prevent eviction, and the Court was bound to pass a decree under section 12(3)(a).
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the tenancy had been validly determined, the statute did not alter the contractual month of tenancy, and the post-suit deposit did not defeat the landlord's right to eviction under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Bombay Rent Act, the landlord's right to recover possession under section 12 arises only after valid determination of the contractual tenancy, and where the statutory conditions in section 12(3)(a) are satisfied, the Court must grant eviction notwithstanding later payment of arrears.