1962 (5) TMI 44 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the month of tenancy.
2. Application of Section 27 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
3. Payment of arrears of rent within two months of the institution of the suit.
4. Discretion of the Court under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Month of Tenancy:
The appellant contended that the month of tenancy should be governed by the British Calendar rather than the Indian Calendar. The High Court held that the month of tenancy was by the Indian Calendar based on the evidence on record. The Supreme Court affirmed this, stating that the tenancy commenced according to the Hindu Calendar and there was no provision in the Act or the Rules converting the month of tenancy from the Hindu Calendar to the British Calendar. Section 27 and Rule 4 only provided for the recoverability of rent according to the British Calendar, not the alteration of the tenancy month.

2. Application of Section 27 of the Act:
The appellant argued that Section 27 of the Act and Rule 4 framed thereunder converted the month of tenancy to the British Calendar. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that Section 27 only mandated the recovery of rent according to the British Calendar and did not alter the month of tenancy. The Court held that the tenancy month remained as per the Hindu Calendar, and the notice to quit served on the appellant was valid.

3. Payment of Arrears of Rent Within Two Months:
The appellant claimed that paying arrears within two months of the suit's institution should prevent forfeiture of the tenancy. The Supreme Court dismissed this contention, emphasizing that under Section 12(2) of the Act, the landlord could institute a suit for eviction after the expiration of one month from the service of notice demanding arrears. Section 12(3)(a) empowered the Court to pass a decree if the rent was in arrears for six months and the tenant failed to pay within one month of the notice. Payment of arrears after the suit's institution did not affect the tenant's liability to eviction.

4. Discretion of the Court Under Section 12(3)(a):
The appellant argued that the Court had discretion under Section 12(3)(a) to pass or not to pass a decree for eviction. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Court must pass a decree for eviction if the conditions of Section 12(3)(a) are met. The Court compared the language of Section 12(3)(a) with Section 12(3)(b) and concluded that the legislature intended to give the Court no discretion in cases falling under Section 12(3)(a), unlike Section 12(3)(b) where specific provisions were made for payment of arrears during the suit's pendency.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenancy month was by the Indian Calendar, the notice to quit was valid, payment of arrears within two months did not prevent eviction, and the Court had no discretion under Section 12(3)(a) but to pass a decree for eviction if the conditions were satisfied. The appeal was dismissed with costs.