Civil Appeal No 1449 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 2521987 of the Bombay High Court in WP No 6028 of 1986
VM Tarkunde and SC Birla for the Appellant
VB Joshi and Janardan for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 463 KANIA J
This is an Appeal by a tenant against a decree for eviction passed against him at the instance of the Respondent who is the landlord
The Appeal has been preferred pursuant to Special Leave granted by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
In view of the short controversy before us the relevant facts can be very briefly stated
The Appellant took the tenancy of the premises in question namely shop in a house bearing CTS No 168 Bhavant Peth Satara City in Maharashtra on an agreed rent of Rs22 per month
Apart from the rent a sum of Rs220 per month was payable on account of Education Cess
The Respondent purchased the said house on December 3 1976 and on the next day the previous owner of the said house informed the Appellant that the property was sold to the Respondent and the tenancy was attorned and further stated that the Appellant was in arrears of rent from 161976 to 30111976
On January 11 1977 the Appellant received a notice from the Respondent dated January 10 1977 demanding the arrears of rent from the Appellant
On January 17 1977 the Appellant sent a money order to the Respondent for the arrears of rent but the money order stated that the payment was being made to the Respondent as the Muktyar or agent of the previous landlord
This money order was refused by the Respondent
On February 1415 1977 the Appellant filed a standard rent application in the Trial Court for fixing the standard rent of the premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which we shall refer to hereinafter as the Bombay Rent Act
The Respondent filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No 123 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Satara claiming arrears of rent and possession of the suit premises on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement as contemplated under Section 123 and Section 131 respectively of the Bombay Rent Act
The issues in the said suit were framed by the Trial Court on September 12 1978 and that is accepted as the first day of hearing of the suit
Although the Appellant made applications on 24 12 1977 15 1 1980 9 12 1980 and 27 1 1981 for fixation of interim rent the Trial Court passed an order only on January 27 1981 fixing the interim rent at Rs20 per month and gave directions to the Appellant to pay all the arrears of rent on or before February 10 1981
The Appellant deposited all the arrears of rent at the rate fixed by the Court for the period from 1 6 1976 to 31 1 1981 in the Trial Court on January 29 1981 that is within two days from the date of order fixing the rent
The Appellant thereafter deposited the rent in the Trial Court as set out in the following manner 464 ____________________________________________________________ C No Receipt Date Amount Particulars No ____________________________________________________________ 1269 1094 29 1 81 115860 June 1976 to Feb 1981 1416 1208 25 2 81 2000 March 1981 13 12 2 4 81 6000 April May June 1981 409 366 8 7 81 6000 JulyAug Sept  1981 849 755 5 10 81 6000 October November Dec 1981 1322 1166 11 1 82 6000 January February March 1982 54 51 8 4 82 6000 April May June1982 682 630 10 8 82 6000 JulyAugust Sept 1982 1153 1055 1 11 82 6000 October November Dec 1982 1728 1596 7 2 83 4000 January February 1983 107 100 12 4 83 6000 MarchApril May 1983 528 484 14 7 83 4000 JuneJuly 1983 998 910 28 9 83 4000 August Sept 1983 1213 1203 7 11 83 4000 October Nov1983 1689 1603 11 1 84 2000 December 1983 1635 1551 5 1 84 2000 January 1984 2079 1952 15 3 84 10000 February to June1984 354 316 26 6 84 12000 July to Dec1984 434 256 18 12 84 24000 January to Dec  1985 456 290 17 12 85 24000 January to Dec  1986 The Trial Court held that the Respondent had failed to prove that he was in bona fide need of the suit premises but passed a decree for 465 eviction on the ground that the Appellant had committed default in payment of rent as contemplated under section 123b of the Bombay Rent Act
On an appeal by the Appellant these findings were confirmed by the Additional District Judge Satare and the appeal was dismissed
Being aggrieved the Appellant filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No 6028 of 1986 in the High Court of Bombay
This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by a short order taking the view that the Appellant was in arrears and had committed default in payment of rent and there was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the decisions of the courts below
The present Appeal is directed against this decision
It was submitted by Mr Tarkunde learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant had deposited well within time the entire arrears of rent on the basis of the interim rent fixed by the Trial Court and had thereafter deposited the amount of accruing rent in court with substantial regularity and in view of this no decree for eviction could be passed against the Appellant under the provisions of Section 123b of the Bombay Rent Act read with the other provisions contained in Section 12
It was on the other hand contended by Mr Joshi learned counsel for the Respondent that there was irregularity in the deposit of the interim rent after the initial deposit of arrears was made by the Appellant and he was not entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rent Act and was liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of the rent
In order to appreciate these arguments we have to consider the relevant provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act
The material portion of Section 12 runs as follows 12
1 A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases if any and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act
2 No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against tenant on the ground of non payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the 
466 3a Where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases if such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub section 2 the Court shall pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession
b In any other case no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court
x x x x x x The provision of Section 121 has already been set out
In the present case the provisions of clause a of sub section 3 of Section 12 have no application as there was a dispute regarding the amount of standard rent
Hence the provisions which we have to consider are those contained in clause b of sub section 3 of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act
This clause read in the context makes it clear that no decree for eviction can be passed in a suit for recovery of possession on the ground of non payment of standard rent or permitted increases instituted by the landlord against the tenant if on the first day of the hearing of the suit or on or before such a date as the court may fix the tenant pays or deposits in court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or deposits in court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays the costs of the suit as directed by the court
In the present case both sides accepted the position that the Appellant had deposited in Court the entire arrears of rent on the basis of interim rent fixed well within time as directed by the court
It is common ground that until the application of standard rent made by the tenant is finally decided the interim rent fixed by the court must be regarded as the standard rent
The only question therefore is whether it can be said that the Appellant after the first deposit of the arrears of rent continued to deposit in court the rent and the permit 467 ted increases regularly till the suit was finally decided as contemplated under Section 123b of the Act
In Mranalini B Shah and another vs Bapalal Mohanlal Shah a Division Bench of this Court was called upon to consider the very provisions of Section 123b of the Bombay Rent Act which fall for consideration in the present case before us
In dealing with these provisions Sarkaria J speaking for the Court stated as follows The above enunciation clarifies beyond doubt that the provisions of clause b of Section 123 are mandatory and must be strictly complied with by the tenant during the pendency of the suit or appeal if the landlord s claim for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent is to be defeated
The word regularly  in clause b of Section 123 has a significance of its own
It enjoins a payment or tender characterised by reasonable punctuality that is to say one made at regular times or intervals
The regularity contemplated may not be a punctuality of clock like precision and exactitude but it must reasonably conform with substantial proximity to the sequence of times or intervals at which the rent falls due
Thus where the rent is payable by the month the tenant must if he wants to avail of the benefit of the latter part of clause b tender or pay every month as it falls due or at his discretion in advance
If he persistently defaults during the pendency of the suit or appeal in paying the rent such as where he pays it at irregular intervals of 2 or 3 or 4 months as is the case before us the Court has no discretion to treat what were manifestly irregular payments as substantial compliance with the mandate of this clause irrespective of the fact that by the time the judgment was pronounced all the arrears had been cleared by the tenant
 If we examine the chart of deposits made by the Appellant in the court set out earlier it shows that during the period 29 1 1981 to 17 12 85 the Appellant has been depositing the rents in court for two or three months at a time
In respect of some months there are undoubtedly a few defaults in the sense that the deposits have been made a few days later than directed
In this connection it must be noticed that Trial Court directed that in respect of accruing rent after the order for deposit of arrears was passed the monthly rent must be deposited on the fifth day of each month which it is undisputed must mean the fifth day of each succeeding month
On this basis there are 468 undoubtedly a few defaults committed by the Appellant in the sense that in respect of the first month to which the deposit relates there is some delay amounting to from two or three days upto a maximum of 23 days
But on the other hand the rent for most of the months has been deposited in advance
In these circumstances applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision referred to we are of the view that the rent has been deposited by the Appellant with reasonable punctuality and hence the Appellanttenant can be regarded as having deposited the rent regularly  as contemplated in clause b of subsection 3 of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act
We are of the view that the courts below were in error in taking the view that exact or mathematical punctuality was required in the deposit of rent by a tenant to take advantage of the provisions of Section 123b of the Bombay Rent Act
In these circumstances we set aside the decree for eviction passed by the courts below and order that the suit filed by the Respondent shall stand dismissed
So far as the costs of this Appeal are concerned however that is a different question
It has been pointed out to us by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant has been persisting in his unjustified stand that the Respondent was not his landlord in respect of the premises in question and on that ground he opposed the withdrawal by the Respondent of the amount deposited by the Appellant in the Trial Court
We agree that this stand was unjustified
Mr Tarkunde however made it clear that the Appellant unconditionally accepts the title of the Respondent to the suit building and also accepts that he is the landlord of the Appellant and that the Respondent is entitled to recover the amount of rent from the Appellant
If any rent remains deposited by the Appellant in the Trial Court the Respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the same forthwith
In these circumstances we direct that the entire costs throughout shall be borne and paid by the Appellant
GN Appeal disposed of


Summary:
 A Charter Party agreement was entered into between the appellant Food Corporation of India and the respondent Shipping Company for transportation of bulk cargo from Australia to India
After the cargo was delivered the respondent Company raised disputes regarding certain items and claimed demurrage and overtime charges
As per the agreement the disputes were referred to joint arbitration by two Arbitrators one each appointed by each of the parties
The appellant appointed its Arbitrator with a specific condition that he should give reasons for his award and sent a copy of this letter to the arbitrator appointed by the respondent
The award was made and duly signed by the two Arbitrators at Calcutta and Bombay respectively
The award which was a non speaking one and did not contain reasons for the award but directed the appellant Corporation to pay a lump sum amount to the respondent Company was filed in the High Court of Bombay
The High Court rejected the objection petition filed by the appellants for setting aside the award
In the appeals by special leave it was contended that the High Court of Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain the filing of the award since no cause of action arose in Bombay and that the Arbitrators had not complied with the mandate given to them to state the reasons and therefore the award was liable to be set aside for reasons of misconduct irregularity and lack of competence
Dismissing the appeals by special leave 367  HELD There was no mandate given by both the parties to the arbitration agreement to both the arbitrators to state reasons
The arbitrators could not act on the mandate of one of the parties
368G Unreasoned award is bad
Though the recent trend is that there should be a reasoned award and that would be in consonance with the principles of natural justice in a case where two men of commerce entered into arbitration in respect of money claim under the Charter Party Agreement and the award has awarded a lump sum amount the reasons are not far too seek
It is really an accounting of the rival claims of the parties
368H 369A B Therefore on the facts of the case there is no legal misconduct as such in not giving reasons
369B C There is a specific finding by the Single Judge of the High Court that the agreement was signed at Bombay which was affirmed by the Division Bench
Hence the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the filing of the award
368E F