Case: Vasumatiben Gaurishankar Bhatt Vs. Navairam Manchharam Vora And Ors

The appellant has been tenant of one room in a residential building known as Lalbang situated in Badekhans Chakla in the City of Surat since 18th October 1935. Under the rent note, she is required to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 18. On October 12, 1949, respondents 1 and 2 purchased the said property. It appears that on November 21, 1950, they served a notice on the appellant to vacate the premises let out to her on the ground that she was in arrears of rent from July 1, 1950. On receiving the said notice, the appellant paid a part of the rent, but again fed] into arrears, and so, the respondents served a second notice on her on February 7, 1951, claiming arrears from October 1, 1950. The appellant did not vacate the premises nor did she pay all the arrears due from her. A third notice was accordingly served on her on March 27. 1953, in which the respondents claimed to recover arrears from 1st January 1951, that is to say. arrears for two years and two months. A few days after this notice was served, S. 12 (3) of the Act was amended by the Bombay Amending Act No. 61 of 1953, and the amendment came into force on the 31st March 1954. The respondents then filed the present suit against the appellant on April 12, 1954, in which they asked for a decree for eviction against the appellant on the ground that they wanted the premises let out to the appellant bona fide for their personal use, and that the appellant was in arrears for more than six months. This suit was resisted by the appellant on several grounds. Pending the hearing of the suit, the appellant paid by instalments in all Rs. 1,470 before the date of the decree, So that at the date when the decree was passed, no arrears ere clue from her.2. The learned trial Judge upheld both the pleas made by the respondents and passed a decree for eviction against the appellant. He held that the respondents reasonably and bona fide required the property for their personal use and that the appellant was in arrears of rent for more than six months. This decree was challenged by the appellant by an appeal preferred before the District Court at Surat. The learned District Judge held that the respondents had failed to prove that they needed the premises reasonably and hone fide for their personal use, hilt he accepted their case that the appellant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and that the suit fell within the scope of S. 12 (3) (a) of the Act. That is how the decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed in appeal. The appellant then challenged the correctness of this decree by a revisional petition filed before the Gujarat High Court. This petition ultimately failed and the decree passed against her was confirmed. It is against this decision thatthe appellant has come to this Court

Reasoning: 7. We are unable to accept this argument. What S. 12 (3) (a) requires is that in cases where there is no dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if the landlord is able to show that the tenant is in arrears for a period of six months or more and the said arrears continued in spite of the fact that a notice was served on him before the institution of the suit and no payment was made within a month thereafter, the landlord is entitled to get a decree for ejectment against the tenant. It is true that S. 12 (3) (a) refers to a notice, but in terms, it refers to a notice served by the landlord as required by Section 12 (2), and in S. 12 (2) the legislature has made no amendment when it amended sub-s. (3). If we turn to S. 12 (2), it would be noticed that the notice given by the respondents to the appellant in the present case satisfies the requirements of the said sub-section. The respondents told the appellant by their notice that arrears were due from her, and there is no doubt that the arrears were not paid up by the appellant until the expiration of one month next after the notice in writing was served on her in that behalf. Section 12 (2) never required the landlord to state to the tenant what the consequences would be if the tenant neglected to pay the arrears demanded from him/her by the notice. Therefore, if the notice served by the respondents on the appellant prior to the institution of the present suit is in order and it is shown that the arrears have not been paid as required, then S. 12 (2) has been complied with, and it is on that footing that the case between the parties has to be tried under S. 12 (3)our opinion, there is no substance in this argument. The use of the word `neglect" in the present tense has to be construed in the light of the fact that the clause refers to the tenant neglecting to make payment of the rent until the expiration of one month next after receipt of the notice, and that clearly would have made the use of the past tense inappropriate. The position therefore, is that if notice has been served as required by Section 12 (2) and the tenant is shown to have neglected to comply with the notice until the expiration of one month thereafter, Section 12 (2) satisfied and S. 12 (3) (a) comes intois not easy to accept the contention that the provisions of Section 12 (3) (a) really confer any vested right as such ml the tenant. What S. 12 (3) (a) provided was that a decree shall not be passed in favour of the landlord in case the tenant pays or tenders ill Court the standard rent at the hearing of the suit. This provision cannot prima facie be said to confer any right or vested right on the tenant. But even if the tenant had a vested right to pay the money in Court at the hearing of the suit, we do not see flow that consideration can alter the plain effect of the words used in S. 12 (3) (a). The suit was filed after the amended section came into force, and clearly the amended provision applies to the suit and governs the decision of the dispute between the parties. If that is so, the plain meanings of S. 12 (3)( a) is that if a notice is served on the tenant and he has not made the payment as required within the time specified in S. 12 (3)(a), the Court is bound to pass a decree for eviction against the tenant. That is the view taken by the Gujarat High Court and we are satisfied that that view clearly gives effect to the provisions of S. 12 (3) (a) as amended in 1953.