9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The decree was sought both on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide need of the plaintiff-Trust as well as with regard to default in payment of rent. The trial Court made the decree holding in favour of the plaintiff-landlord with regard to the reasonable and bona fide need of the trust who have the tenanted property. It, however, refused to make a decree on the ground of default. The matter was taken up in appeal and the appeal Court affirmed the decree on the ground of default but not on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord-trust. That decree so made with reference to Section 12 of the Act is under challenge in this Court. 3. For the petitioner, Mr. Karlekar submitted that the decree is solely based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 12(3)(a) of the Act was not available to landlord. Mr. Kamat submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mranalini B. Shah v. B.M. Shah AIR1980SC954, which refers to the earlier judgments of the- Supreme Court, puts the matter beyond doubt and the petitioner's submissions are devoid of merit for he has not complied with the conditions of Section 12(3)(a) nor that of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. According to Mr. Kamat, the judgments of the learned Judges of this Court do not take into account nor do they refer to the decision of the Supreme Court and, therefore, are clearly distinguishable. As far as the need of the landlord is concerned, Mr. Kamat argued that he should be entitled to raise that point in this petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act was served. on the tenant before suit and was replied to by the tenant (Ex. 58 and Ex. 57). On the basis of termination of tenancy for default in payment of rent and permitted increases, the suit was filed. 6. These being the admitted and found facts, it is indeed difficult to apply the ratio of the decision of this Court in Bablu's case (supra). There, the Court found that Section 12(3)(a) of the Act would not be applicable only to the claim of education cess. Had the matter been only under that provision, some other debate could have been raised and would be available, but herein the decree is also made under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. Even under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of 12 of the Act a tenant has to show that he has, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of all the arrears. 8. This position with regard to the making of such a decree against a tenant in such suit filed under the Act is well-settled. The decision of the Supreme Court in Mranalini's case (supra) has authoritatively summarised this position following the earlier decisions of the Court in the case of Dhansukhlal v. Dalichand [1968] 3 SCR 346 ; Harbanslal v. Prabhudas [1976] 3 SCR 628, and Ganpat v. Sashikant [1978] 3 SCR 198 . Quoting from the Ganpat's case, the position has been restated to be the one that where the conditions under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act are not satisfied there is a further opportunity given to the tenant to protect himself against eviction. He can comply with the conditions set out in S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef of eviction can be granted, is provided for by Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. That provision deals with the relief of possession to be decreed and conditions for the same. By reason of the conditions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act being not satisfied, it does not follow that even if the matters are covered by cl (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act, no decree can be passed. As is plain, both the provisions are operational and applicative ones ; first dealing with the statutory default, while the second finding out the readiness and willingness of the tenant in the matter of his obligation to clear the rental liability since before and during the pendency of the Us. That is why even when un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the finding recorded, such a suitor was entitled to question that finding by filing appropriate writ petition, particularly because the relief of possession under Section 12 of the Act and that under Section 13 of the Act are mutually exclusive, having an independent format for judicial consideration. Though it is permissible to file a suit relying on both of those provisions, the eventual relief flows from different facts and upon making out of different statutory conditions. If in such a joint suit Court were to refuse decree under either of the sections, that would be a decree refusing relief under the given provision. It is for the aggrieved party to pursue the remedy by taking appropriate steps to question such refusal. Admittedly, res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
