Case: Chase Bright Steel Ltd Vs. Shantaram Shankar

not in any way affect either the claim or the recovery thereof. 12. The landlord never disputed that the tenant had not paid the municipal taxes. As a matter of fact, the municipal demands had been produced in evidence. The High Court had appropriately appreciated the matter and it warrants no interference. 13. As a proposition of law, it cannot be disputed that there must be a valid demand for maintainability of suit for arrears of rent or permitted increases. It has been so laid down in Chiman Lals case (supra) at pages 43-44. 14. In this case, the notice dated 27.7.1977 is as follows :- "You have been leased out the entire second floor. You are in occupation of the entire second floor. The month of tenancy is according to British Calendar Month. You have accommodated your three officers in the three blocks on the second floor. The net rent in respect of the said second floor is Rs. 358.29. Over and above the said rent you require to pay to my client 7% as education cess, Rs. 30% for water charges and 1/4% as unemployment charges and 1/4% as the tree cess. Thus you are supposed to pay to my client Rs. 56.50 per month as permitted increases. You are at present in arrears of rent from February 1976. My client has demanded the same but you have neglected and failed to pay the same. You are thus a defaulter. You are not ready and willing to pay the rent as and when it becomes due.You are also called upon to pay the entire arrears of rent on receipt hereof. Failing compliance of which, my clients will be compelled to go to the court of law for getting their grievance redressed entirely at your risk as to the costs and consequences which please note. 15. No doubt, the word `supposed in paragraph 3 has been incorrectly used. But that does not in any way affect the validity of the notice. Besides, merely because it is stated `arrears of rent, it does not mean that there is no demand for permitted increases since those permitted increases are part of rent. The plaint in no mistakable terms says as follows:- "The month of the tenancy of the defendant was according to British Calendar Month. The net rent in respect of the said second floor was Rs. 358.29 over and above the said rent the defendant was required to pay to these defendant 7% as education cess, Rs. 30/- for water charges, 1/4% as unemployment charges and 1/4% as tree cess. These plaintiffs submit that thus the defendant was required to pay the permitted increases per month amounting to Rs. 56.90. The defendant was in arrears of permitted increases since February, 1976. These plaintiffs demanded the same time and again but the defendant has failed to pay the same. The defendant is, thereby a defaulter. 16. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee cannot be accepted. Factually, the ruling stated as Chiman Lals case (supra) is distinguishable. In R.K. Shettys case (supra), it is stated at page 581 as under : "In Maheshwari Mills Ltd., under the terms of the tenancy the tenant was obliged to pay the municipal taxes and property taxes in respect of the demised premises. The court took the view that such payment was by way of rent and since the municipal taxes and property taxes were payable on year to year basis, a part of the rent was admittedly not payable by the month and, therefore, Section 12(3)(a) was not attracted. In Prakash Surya the tenant had agreed to pay the municipal tax and education cess. The amount payable towards these taxes constituted rent and since the same was payable at the end of the year the court held that the rent had ceased to be payable by the month and hence Section 12(3)(a) had no application. 17. As rightly urged by Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the respondent the permitted increased may not be payable monthly; but in the instant case, the period, for which the permitted increases are claimed, is between 1.2.1976 till 27.4.1979. This is evident from paragraph 6 of the plaint as under : "The cause of action for the purpose of filing of this suit first arose on or about 1.3.1976, for arrears of permitted increases and for possession on 1.9.1977 and is being continued respectively from time to time till the filing of this suit. 18. Therefore, R.K. Shettys case (supra) cannot be pressed into service. 19. At no point of time, the tenant disputed the payment of municipal taxes by the landlord. In fact, the evidence is to the following effect: "Permitted increase was amounting to Rs. 56.50 since February 1976. I have produced the zerox copy of the notices issued by Municipality at Ex. 13. We demanded the permitted increase to the defendant. But they failed to pay the same. 20. On 14.9.1983, the standard rent was fixed as Rs. 358/- per month and the permitted increases were fixed at Rs. 56 per month. The appellant continued to pay Rs. 358/- per month being the standard rent. He did not pay the permitted increases. The fact that he was depositing throughout Rs. 358/- and even during the stage of writ petition, can hardly relieve him from such an obligation. Under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act, there is an obligation to deposit the permitted increases not only during the pendency of the standard rent application which in this case has come to be dismissed for default but even during the pendency of suit for eviction. As rightly held by the High Court, if this were not to be so, the tenant could claim protection on its showing that he had within a period of one month from the date of service of notice of demand under Section 12(2) filed an application for standard rent and that he had obeyed that order; in this case the interim standard rent.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]17. As rightly urged by Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the respondent the permitted increased may not be payable monthly; but in the instant case, the period, for which the permitted increases are claimed, is between 1.2.1976 till 27.4.1979. This is evident from paragraph 6 of the plaint as undercause of action for the purpose of filing of this suit first arose on or about 1.3.1976, for arrears of permitted increases and for possession on 1.9.1977 and is being continued respectively from time to time till the filing of this suit.Therefore, R.K. Shettys case (supra) cannot be pressed into service.At no point of time, the tenant disputed the payment of municipal taxes by the landlord. In fact, the evidence is to the followingincrease was amounting to Rs. 56.50 since February 1976. I have produced the zerox copy of the notices issued by Municipality at Ex. 13. We demanded the permitted increase to the defendant. But they failed to pay the same.On 14.9.1983, the standard rent was fixed as Rs. 358/- per month and the permitted increases were fixed at Rs. 56 per month. The appellant continued to pay Rs. 358/- per month being the standard rent. He did not pay the permitted increases. The fact that he was depositing throughout Rs. 358/- and even during the stage of writ petition, can hardly relieve him from such an obligation. Under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act, there is an obligation to deposit the permitted increases not only during the pendency of the standard rent application which in this case has come to be dismissed for default but even during the pendency of suit for eviction. As rightly held by the High Court, if this were not to be so, the tenant could claim protection on its showing that he had within a period of one month from the date of service of notice of demand under Section 12(2) filed an application for standard rent and that he had obeyed that order; in this case the interim standard rent.