1961 (12) TMI 102 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the standard rent fixed by the trial court.
2. Readiness and willingness of the tenant to pay the standard rent.
3. Compliance with Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act.
4. Validity of the notice given by the landlord under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act.
5. Discretion of the court to grant relief against dispossession outside the provisions of the Rent Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Standard Rent Fixed by the Trial Court:
The defendant argued that the standard rent of Rs. 6-8-0 per month fixed by the trial court was erroneous and illegal. The plaintiff contended that this issue could not be raised in revision as it was not raised before the District Judge. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC allows the High Court to interfere only if the subordinate court acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. Since the defendant abandoned the standard rent issue before the District Judge, the High Court held that it could not entertain this plea in revision. The court emphasized that the District Judge, having not been asked to consider the standard rent, could not be said to have acted illegally in confirming the trial court's decision.

2. Readiness and Willingness of the Tenant to Pay the Standard Rent:
The defendant contended that he was ready and willing to pay the standard rent, thus barring the plaintiff from recovering possession under Section 12(1) of the Rent Act. However, this contention was also abandoned before the District Judge. The High Court held that since this issue was not raised before the District Judge, it could not be considered in revision. The court noted that readiness and willingness to pay the standard rent is a factual question, and the defendant, having abandoned this contention, could not raise it in the revision application.

3. Compliance with Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act:
The defendant argued that he complied with Section 12(3)(b) by depositing the interim rent specified by the trial court under Section 11(3). The court rejected this argument, stating that interim rent specified under Section 11(3) could not be equated with standard rent fixed by the court. The standard rent is the rent fixed by the court on application or in the suit, while interim rent is merely the amount to be paid pending the final decision. The defendant's payment of interim rent did not fulfill the requirements of Section 12(3)(b), which necessitates payment of standard rent. The court also noted that the defendant did not make an application under Section 11(3) within one month after the notice, as required by the Explanation to Section 12.

4. Validity of the Notice Given by the Landlord under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act:
The defendant contended that the notice given by the plaintiff was not valid under Section 12(2) and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to award possession. The court held that the validity of the notice was a fact in issue to be determined by the court under the Rent Act, not a jurisdictional fact. The court noted that the defendant did not raise this issue before the District Judge and thus could not raise it in revision. The court emphasized that the determination of whether a valid notice was given is within the jurisdiction of the Rent Act courts, and any error in this determination does not affect the jurisdiction but is subject to appeal.

5. Discretion of the Court to Grant Relief Against Dispossession Outside the Provisions of the Rent Act:
The defendant argued that the court had discretion to grant relief against dispossession even if the conditions of the Rent Act were not met. The court rejected this argument, holding that the Rent Act provides specific protections to tenants, and if these conditions are not met, the court has no discretion to refuse a decree for possession. The court emphasized that the tenant must find protection within the four corners of the Rent Act, and there is no general equitable jurisdiction to grant relief against dispossession outside the Act. The court cited various authorities to support this view, noting that the principle of relief against forfeiture applies only to cases of forfeiture, not to cases where tenancy is determined by other means.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that the defendant could not challenge the standard rent fixed by the trial court, raise the issue of readiness and willingness to pay the standard rent, or contest the validity of the notice in revision. The court also held that the defendant did not comply with Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act and that the court had no discretion to grant relief against dispossession outside the provisions of the Rent Act. The decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff was thus upheld.