Case: Pioneer Paper Box Factory Vs. Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas

1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 19 November,1963 of the High Court of Bombay dismissing the appellant defendant tenants application for revision in a decree for eviction of the defendant2. The appellant was tenant of the respondent. On 28 April, 1954 the appellant filed an application under section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act for fixation of standard rent. During the pendency of the application the respondent landlady served a notice on the appellant in the month of March, 1955 terminating the tenancy on the ground that the appellant had failed to pay rent from 1 March, 1954. On 25 April, 1955 a suit was filed for eviction of the appellant3. During the pendency of the Suit On 29 June, 1956, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 55/7/- p.m. The contractual rent was Rs. 85/- p.m4. When the suit came up for hearing on 5 October, 1956, it appeared that the appellant paid all the arrears of rent in accordance with the standard rent but did not pay the costs at the suit. The trial court passed an ejectment decree against the appellant

Reasoning: 7. The High Court rightly rejected the contention for two reasons. First, though a formal order as to costs was not made, yet the trial court had made an order directing the appellant to pay the amount of costs and the appellant did not pay the costs. Secondly, the appellant stated before the trial court that the appellant was not in a position to tender what is described as professional costs and court costs of the suit8. It is indisputable that in the trial court the appellant not only admitted failure to pay costs but also inability to tender the costs. The appellant could be entitled to protection against eviction only if the appellant complied with the provisions of the statute. The appellant was required to tender not only the arrears of rent but also the costs of the suit. In the trial court the appellant admitted noncompliance with the provisions of the statute. Therefore, the trial court rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to any benefit or protection against eviction9. The appellate court held that because the appellant filed an application for fixation of standard rent and therefore there being a dispute between the parties regarding the standard rent no order in eviction could be passed under section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The appellate court, however, held that the case fell within the provisions of section 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act by reason of the failure of the appellant to pay costs of the suit11. The appeal is from the judgment of the High Court. It would be improper to interfere with exercise, of discretion passed by the High Court when the matter was not brought to the notice of the High Court. Discretion is exercised by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Any interference with the exercise of discretion in the present case would be substituting the discretion of this Court on a set of facts which were never presented to the High Court12. The appellant was not entitled to any relief under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The High Court rightly rejected the application for revision.