9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-payment of rent and eviction. 2. Fixation of standard rent. 3. Compliance with Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-payment of rent and eviction: The plaintiff, owner of certain premises, sought eviction of the defendant, his tenant, for non-payment of rent since October 1, 1955. The defendant contended that he had paid rent until April 1, 1956, and claimed credit for Rs. 200 spent on electric installation with the plaintiff's consent. The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for eviction, holding that the defendant had paid the stipulated rent up to April 1, 1956, and was entitled to credit for Rs. 150 spent on electric installation. The District Court confirmed the dismissal, while the High Court reversed it, ordering the defendant to hand over possession. 2. Fixation of standard rent: The defendant applied under Section 11(1) of the Act for fixation of standard rent and interim rent. The Trial Court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 50 per month, while the District Court fixed it at Rs. 70 per month. The High Court found that the defendant had not complied with the requirements of Section 12(3)(b) as he failed to pay even the interim rent fixed by the Trial Court. 3. Compliance with Section 12(3)(b) of the Act: Section 12(1) of the Act protects tenants from eviction if they pay or are ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases. The High Court held that the defendant was not ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases at the date of the suit and did not comply with Section 12(3)(b) because he had not paid the interim rent fixed by the Trial Court or the costs of the suit. The Supreme Court clarified that the tenant must pay or tender the standard rent and permitted increases on the first day of hearing or as directed by the Court to claim protection under Section 12(3)(b). The Court also noted that compliance with an order for payment of interim rent is conclusive evidence of readiness and willingness to pay the standard rent. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by setting aside the District Court's order. The High Court can only interfere if the Subordinate Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted with material irregularity. The District Court had jurisdiction to decide the case, and its erroneous decision did not justify interference by the High Court. The Supreme Court restored the District Court's order, noting that the High Court had no authority to set aside the order merely because it found the judgment assailable on the ground of error of fact or law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the District Court's order, and directed that any amount deposited as standard rent since the District Court's order be paid to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 70 per month. No order as to costs was made in the appeal.
|
