Mandatory rent-control eviction for arrears prevails over later amendment, equitable relief, and unauthorised possession claims.

Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was applied on the footing that the tenants were in arrears for more than six months, a valid demand notice had been served, and no statutory dispute was raised in time. The 1987 amendment did not operate retrospectively, and later deposits did not cure the default because the amended scheme also required payment of simple interest. Article 142 and Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act could not override the mandatory rent-control ground for eviction. The alleged garage occupier also failed to obtain protection under amended Section 15(2), as the evidence showed possession through an unauthorised arrangement and the finding of trespasser status was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the tenants could avoid eviction for arrears of rent under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 by relying on the 1987 amendment and the deposit made during the proceedings; (ii) whether relief could be granted under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 despite the mandatory scheme of Section 12(3)(a); and (iii) whether the alleged occupier of the garage could claim the benefit of the amended Section 15(2) of the Act.

Issue (i): whether the tenants could avoid eviction for arrears of rent under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 by relying on the 1987 amendment and the deposit made during the proceedings.

Analysis: The default fell within Section 12(3)(a) as it stood when the suit was instituted because the rent was in arrears for more than six months, notice of demand had been served, and no dispute as to standard rent or permitted increases was raised within the statutory period. The amended provision was held not to operate retrospectively in the absence of any express indication comparable to the retrospective deeming made for Section 15(2). The amended scheme also required payment of simple interest, which had not been deposited. The expression "on the first day of the hearing" was construed as referring to the statutorily relevant first hearing and not to later stages of the litigation.

Conclusion: The tenants were not entitled to escape eviction on the basis of the amendment or the later deposits, and the decree for eviction on the ground of arrears was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether relief could be granted under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 despite the mandatory scheme of Section 12(3)(a).

Analysis: Article 142 cannot be used to defeat a mandatory statutory right conferred on the landlord. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to forfeiture of lease for non-payment of rent, whereas the present suit was founded on the special statutory ground of eviction under the rent control legislation and not on forfeiture under the general property law. The Court also rejected the plea that the tenant-friendly character of rent legislation required ignoring the mandatory wording of Section 12(3)(a).

Conclusion: Neither Article 142 nor Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 afforded relief to the tenants.

Issue (iii): whether the alleged occupier of the garage could claim the benefit of the amended Section 15(2) of the Act.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the occupier entered under an arrangement with a tenant's son who had no legal authority to sub-let or license the garage, and the occupier himself had not set up a positive sub-tenancy case in the trial court. On the facts, the finding that he was a trespasser was unassailable, and a trespasser could not invoke the statutory protection granted to a person validly sub-let the premises and in possession on the relevant date. The Court also found no merit in the contention that the writ proceedings could not be reconsidered after dictation of judgment, as the record showed that the matter had not been finally concluded when further hearing was fixed.

Conclusion: The alleged occupier was not entitled to the benefit of the amended Section 15(2), and the finding treating him as a trespasser was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the eviction decree failed in all respects, and the common decision below was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A mandatory rent-control eviction ground cannot be displaced by a later amendment or by equitable resort to general relief provisions unless the statute itself expressly or by necessary intendment permits such displacement; retrospective benefit must be clearly conferred by the amending law.

---