9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the phrase "expiration of one month next after the notice" under S. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. Determining the calculation of the period of one month under the Bombay Rent Act. 3. Comparison of the phrases in S. 12(2) and S. 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. 4. Application of legal principles from other judgments to the present case. Detailed Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the phrase "expiration of one month next after the notice" as per S. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner argued that the period of one month should be calculated from the month following the receipt of the notice, allowing the tenant to pay rent until the end of that month. However, the court clarified that the phrase signifies that the relevant period would be of one month's duration to be calculated after excluding the day on which the notice is received by the tenant. 2. The calculation of the period of one month under the Bombay Rent Act was a crucial point of contention. The court emphasized that a month, as defined by S. 3(30) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, is reckoned according to the British calendar, meaning it varies in duration based on the number of days in the relevant month. Therefore, the period of one month will depend on the specific days in the month, such as 31 days for a month with 31 days, 30 days for a month with 30 days, and so on. 3. Another significant aspect of the judgment was the comparison of the phrases in S. 12(2) and S. 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. The court clarified that both phrases, "expiration of one month next after the notice" in S. 12(2) and "expiration of the period of one month after the notice" in S. 12(3)(a), refer to the same duration of one month after the receipt of the notice by the tenant. The court rejected the argument that the phrase "next after" denotes the end of the following month, emphasizing that the calculation should exclude the day of notice receipt. 4. The judgment also drew upon legal principles from other cases to support the interpretation applied in this case. References were made to judgments such as In re V.S. Mehta, Darvodh Singh v. Union of India, and Madurai K. Rengiah Chettiar and Co. Madurai v. Union of India to illustrate how the calculation of time periods in legal contexts follows the British calendar months and excludes the day of the triggering event. These comparisons reinforced the court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's appeal and uphold the decree for eviction under S. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
|
