Holding

Exact punctuality is not required; reasonable punctuality suffices for the "regularly" condition of Section 12(3)(b), and the appellant’s payments met this standard, so the eviction decree was set aside.

Summary

Mohan Laxman Hede (appellant) was a tenant of a shop owned by Noormohamed Adam Shaikh (respondent). After being served a notice for rent arrears, the appellant paid the arrears and thereafter deposited rent in court at irregular intervals, sometimes a few days late and sometimes in advance. The respondent sued for possession on the ground of default in rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and obtained a decree for eviction. The appellant contended that his payments were made with reasonable punctuality and thus satisfied the "regularly" requirement of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act, while the respondent argued that exact punctuality was required. The Supreme Court held that Section 12(3)(a) was inapplicable due to a dispute over standard rent and that Section 12(3)(b) only demands reasonable, not mathematical, punctuality; the appellant's payments were therefore regular. Consequently, the eviction decree was set aside and the suit dismissed, with costs awarded against the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act applies when there is a dispute over standard rent.
Whether the term "regularly" in Section 12(3)(b) requires exact, clock‑like punctuality of rent payments.
Whether the appellant's pattern of rent deposits satisfies the requirement of regularity under Section 12(3)(b), thereby precluding an eviction decree.

Legislation cited

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947s. 12(3)(a), s. 12(3)(b), s. 13(1)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 106

Subjects

evictionrent regularityBombay Rent ActSection 12(3)(b)tenancydefault in rentpossession suit

Judgment

MOHAN LAXMAN HEDE A
v.
NOORMOHAMED ADAM SHAIKH

APRIL 7, 1988

[R.S. PATHAK C.J.I., M.H. KANIA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] B

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,

- t947-Seciion 12(3)(b)-'Regularity' in payment-Significance of-
Exact or mathematical punctuality not required.

Appellant took the tenancy or the premises in question on an
agreed monthly rent of Rs.22 + Rs.2.20 per month on account of
c
Education Cess. Respondent purchased the house on December 3, 1976.
Appellant was in arrears of rent from J.6. 1976 to 30.11. 76. In response
to the notice issued by the Respondent, appellant sent a money order to
Respondent treating him as the Muktyar or agent of the previous land-
lord. The respondent refused the money order. Thereafter the appel- D
lant filed an application in the trial court for fixing the standard rent of
the premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

The Respondent filed a suit claiming arrears of rent and posses-
sion of the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of E
rent and bona fide requirement under section 12(3) and section 13(1) of
the Act. Trial Court passed an order fixing the interim rent of Rs.20
and directed the appellant to pay all arrears of rent and future rent
accordingly. Appellant deposited the arrears and thereafter made pay-
men.t not monthly but at some irregular intervals.
F
The Trial Court held that the respondent had failed to prove that
he was in bona fide need of the suit premises, but passed a decree for
eviction on the ground that the Appellant had committed default in
payment of rent as contemplated under section 12(3)(b) of the Act. On
appeal these findings were confirmed by the Additional District Judge.
The Appellant tiled a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was dis- G
missed. In the appeal by special leave, it was contended on behalf of the
appellant that payments of rents were made with substantial regularity
and that no decree for eviction could be passed against the Appellant.
The contention of the Respondent was that there/
was irregularity in the
deposit of the rent and that the appellant was liable to be evicted on the
ground of default in payment of rent. H
461
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 119881 3 S.C.R. "(
Disposing of the appeal this Court,
A
HELD: J. Section 12(3)(a) of the· Act will not be applicable since
there was dispute regarding the amount of standard rent. S~etion
12(3)(b) is applicable, which makes it clear that no decree for eviction
can be passed in a suit for recovery of possession on the ground of
non-payment of standard rent or permitted increases instituted by the ~ ~
B
landlord against the tenant, if on the first day of the hearing of the suit
or on or before such a date, as the court may fix, the tenant pays or
deposits in court the standard rent and permitted increases then due
and thereafter continues to pay or deposits in court regularly such rent
-
and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays the '.

c
costs of the suit as directed by the court. l466E-FI -1,- .
2. As ordered by the Trial Court, the monthly rent should have
been deposited on the fifth day of each succeeding month. There were a
few defaults committed by the Appellant varying from 2 to 3 days into a
maximum of 23 days. On the other hand, rent for most of the months
D had been deposited in advance. In the circumstances of the case the
Appellant had been depositing the rent with reasonable punctuality and
can be regarded as having deposited the rent 'regularly' as contemp-
lated in Section 12(3)(b) and it is incorrect to say that exact or
mathematical punctuality was required in the deposit of rent by a ten-
ant to take advantage of the provision<; of Section 12(3)(b). l467G-H; 468A-CI
E

(Mranalini B Shah and another v. Bapalal Mohan/al Shah, 119801
4 S.C.C. 251, followed.

F
!The decree for eviction was set aside and the court directed that
the suit filed by the Respondent shall stand dismissed.I ~
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1449
of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.1987 of the Bombay
G High Court in W.P. No. 6028 of 1986.

V .M. Tarkunde and S.C. Birla for the Appellant.

V.B. Joshi and Janardan for the Respondent.

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.L. HEDE v. N.A. SHAIKH [KANIA, J.] 463

KANIA, J. This is an Appeal by a tenant against a decree for
A
eviction passed against him ai the instance of the Respondent who is
the landlord. The Appeal has been preferred pursuant to Special
Leave granted by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. ·
In view of the short controversy before us, the relevant facts can
be very briefly stated.
B
The Appellant took the tenancy of the premises in question,
namely, -shop in a house bearing CTS No. 168, Bhavant Peth, Satara
- City in Maharashtra on an agreed rent of Rs.22 per month. Apart from
the rent, a sum of Rs.2.20 per month was payable on account of
Education Cess. The Respondent purchased the said house on
December 3, 1976 and on the next day the previous owner of the said
house informed the Appellant that the property was sold to the c
Respondent and the tenancy was attomed and further stated that the
Appellant was in arrears of rent from 1.6.1976 to 30.11.1976. On
January 11, 1977, the Appellant received a notice from the Respon-
dent dated January 10, 1977 demanding the arrears of rent from the
Appellant. On January 17, 1977, the Appellant sent a money order to D
the Respondent for the arrears of rent but the money order stated that
the payment was being made to the Respondent as the Muktyar or
agent of the previous landlord. This money order was refused by the
Respondent. On February 14/15, 1977, the Appellant filed a standard
rent application in the Trial Court for fixing the standard rent of the
premises under the provisions cif the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodg- E

-
ing House Rates Control Act, 1947 which we shall refer to hereinafter
as "the Bombay Rent Act". The Respondent filed a suit, being Regu-
lar Civil Suit No. 123 of 1977, in the Court of Civil Judge Junior
Division, Satara claiming arrears of rent and possession of the suit
premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and bona
fide requirement as contemplated under Section 12(3) and Section F
13(1) respectively of the Bombay Rent Act. The issues in the said suit
were framed by the Trial Court on September 12, 1978, and that is
accepted as the first day of hearing of the suit. Although the Appellant
made applications on 24-12-1977, 15-1-1980, 9-12-1980 and 27-1-1981
for fixation of interim rent, the Trial Court passed an order only on
January 27, 1981 fixing the interim rent at Rs.20 per month and gave G
directions to the Appellant to pay all the arrears of rent on or before
February 10, 1981. The Appellant deposited all the arrears of rent at
the rate fixed by the Court for the period from 1-6-1976 to 31-1-1981 in
the Trial Court on January 29, 1981, that is, within two days from the
date of order fixing the rent. The Appellant thereafter deposited the
rent in the Trial Court as set out in the following manner: H
464

A 'C'No. Receipt
No.·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Date Amount Particulars
[1988] 3 S.C.R. .~·

~ -
1269 1094 29-1-81 1158.60 June 1976to
February 1981
B 1416 1208 25-2-81 20.00 March, 1981 ~.
.
13 12 2-4-81 60.00 April, May,
June, 1981
409

849
366

755
8-7-81

5-10-81
60.00

60.00
July, August,
September, 1981
October, November,
-
c 1322 1166 11-1-82 60.00
December, 1981
January, February,
March, 1982
1-.
54 51 8-4-82 60.00 April, May, June,
1982
682 630 10-8-82 60.00 July, August
D September, 1982
1153 1055 1-11-82 60.00 October, November,
December, 1982
1728 1596 7.2.83 40.00 January, February,
1983
107 100 12-4-83 60.00 March, April, May, ~-
E 1983
528 484 14-7-83 40.00 June, July, 1983

998
1213
910
1203
28-9-83
7-11-83
40.00
40.00
August, Sept., 1983
October, November,
-
F 1689
1635
1603
1551
11-1-84
5-1-84
20.00
20.00
1983
December, 1983
January, 1984
}'
2079 1952 15-3-84 100.00 February to June,
1984
354 316 26-6-84 120.00 July to December,
1984
G 434 256 18-12-84 240.00 January to
December, 1985
456 290 17-12-85 240.00 January to
December, 1986

The Trial Court held that the Respondent had failed to prove that he
H was in bona fide need of the suit premises but passed a decree for
M.L. HEDE v. N.A. SHAIKH [KANIA, J.] 465

eviction on the ground that the Appellant had committed default in A
\ payment of rent as contemplated under section ,U(3)(b) of the
Bombay Rent Act. On an appeal by the Appellant, these findings were
confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Satare and the appeal was
dismissed. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed a writ petition, being
Writ Petition No. 6028 of 1986, in the High Court of Bombay. This B
writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court by a .short order taking the view that the Appellant was in
arrears and had committed default in payment of rent and there was no
reason for the High Court to ·interfere with the decisions of the courts
below. the present Appeal is directed against this decision.

It was submitted by Mr. Tarkunde, learned counsel for the Ap- c
pellant that the Appellant had deposited well within time the entire
arrears of rent on the basis of the interim rent fixed by the Trial Court
and had thereafter deposited the amount of accruing rent in court with
substantial regularity and in view of this, no decree for eviction could
b,: passed against the Appellant under the provisions of Section D
12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act read with the other provisions con-
tained in Section 12. It was, on the other hand, contended by Mr.
Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent, that there was irregularity
in the deposit of the interim rent after the initial deposit of arrears was
made by the Appellant, and he was not entitled to the protection of the
Bombay Rent Act and was liable to be evicted on the ground of default E
in· payment of the rent. In order to appreciate these arguments, we
have to consider the relevant provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay
Rent Act. The material portion of Section 12 runs as follows:

"12. (1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of
possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is F
ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent
and permitted increases, if any and observes and performs
the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are
consistent with the provisions of this Act.

(2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by G
a landlord against tenant on the ground of non-payment of
the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expi-
ration of one month next after notice in writing of the
demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has
been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in
section 106oftheTransferof Property Act, 1882. H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R. 'f ;
(3)(a) Where the rent is payable by the month and there is
A no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or per-
mitted increases, if such rent or increases are in arrears for
a period of six months or more ·and the tenant neglects to
make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of
one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2), the
B Court shall pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for
recovery of possession.

(b) In any other case no decree for eviction shall be passed
in any such suit if, on the first day of hearing of the suit or
on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the
c
tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and
permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to
·1
pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted
increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of
the suit as directed by the Court.

D x x x x x"

The provision of Section 12(1) has already been set out. In the
present case, the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section
12 have no application as there was a dispute regarding the amount of
standard rent. Hence the provisions which we have to consider are
E those contained in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the
Bombay Rent Act. This clause read in the context makes it clear that
no decree for eviction can be passed in a suit for recovery of possession
on the ground of non-payment of standard rent or permitted increases
instituted by the landlord against the tenant, if on the first day of the
hearing of the suit or on or before such a date, as the court may fix, the
F tenant pays or deposits in court the standard rent and permitted
increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or deposits in court
regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided
and also pays the costs of the suit as directed by the court.

In the present case, both sides accepted the position that the
G Appellant had deposited in Court the entire arrears of rent on the basis
of interim rent fixed well within time as directed by the court. It is
common ground that until the application of standard rent made by the
tenant is finally decided, the interim rent fixed by the court must be
regarded as the standard rent. The only question, therefore, is
whether it can be said that the Appellant, after the first deposit, of the
H arrears of rent, continued to deposit in court the rent and the permit-
M.L. HEDE v. N.A. SHAIKH [KANIA, J.J 467

ted increases "regularly" till the suit was finally decided as contemp-
lated under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. In Mranalini B. Shah ard
another v. Bapalal Mohan/al Shah, [1980] 4 S.C.C. 251 a Division
Bench of this Court was called µpon to consider the very provisioris of
Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act which fall for consideration
in the present case before us. In dealing with these provisions,
Sarkaria, J., speaking for the Court stated as follows: B

"The above enunciation, clarifies beyond doubt that the
• provisions of clause (b) of Section 12(3) are mandatory,
and must be strictly complied with by the tenant during the
pendency of t_he suit or appeal if the landlord's claim for
eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent is to be
defeated. The word 'regularly' in clause (b) of Section
c
12(3) has a significance of its own. It enjoins a payment or
tender ~haracterised by reasonable punctuality, that is to
say, one made at regular times or intervals. The regularity
contemplated may not be a punctuality, of clock-like preci-
sion and exactitude, but it must reasonably conform with D
substantial proximity to the sequence of times or intervals
at which the rent falls due. Thus, where the rent is payable
by the month, the tenant must, if he wants to avail of the
benefit of the latter part of clause (b), tender or.pay every
month as it falls due, or at his discretion in advance. If he
persistently defaults during the pendency of the suit or E
appeal in paying the rent, such as where he pays it at irre-
'gular intervals of 2 or 3 or 4 months- as is the case before
us-the Court has no discretion to treat what were man-
ifestly irregular payments, as substantial compliance with
the mandate of this clause, irrespective of the fact that by
ihe time the judgment was pronounced all the arrears had F
been cleared by the tenant."

If we examine the chart of deposits made by the Appellant in the
court set out earlier, it shows that during the period 29-1-1981 to
J7-12-85·the Appellant has been depositing the rents in court for two
or three months at a time. In respect of some months, there are G
.~. undoubtedly a few defaults in the sense that the deposits have been
made a few days later than direcced. In this connection, it must be
noticed that Trial Court directed that in respect of accruing rent after
the order for deposit of arrears was passed, the monthly rent must be
deposited on the fifth day of each month which, it is undisputed, must
mean the fifth day of each succeeding month. On this basis there are H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

.A undoubtedly a few defaults committed by the Appellant in the sense
that in respect of the first month to wbich the deposit relates, there is
some delay amounting to from two or three days upto a maximum of
•
23 days. But, on the other hand, the rent for most of the months has
been deposited in advance. In these circumstances, applying the
B principle laid down in the aforesaid decision referred to, we are of the
view that the rent has been deposited by the Appellant with reasonable ... >
punctuality and hence the Appellant/tenant can be regarded as having
deposited. the rent 'regularly' as contemplated in clause (b) of sub-
section (3) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. We are of the view
that the courts below were in error in taking the view that exact or
mathematical punctuality was required in the deposit of rent by a
C tenant to take advantage of the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the
Bombay Rent Act.

In these circumstances, we set aside the decree for eviction pas-
sed by the courts below and order that the suit filed by the Respondent
shall stand dismissed.
D
So far as the costs of this Appeal are concerned, however, that is
a different question. It has been pointed out to us by the learned
counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant has been persisting in
his unjustified stand that the Respondent was not his landlord in
E respect of the premises in question and on that ground he opposed the
withdrawal by the Respondent of the an1ount deposited by the Appel-
lant in the Trial Court. We agree that this stand was unjustified. Mr.
Tarkunde, however, made it clear that the Appellant unconditionally
accepts the title of the Respondent to the suit building and also accepts
that he is the landlord of the Appellant and that the Respondent is
-
entitled to recover the amount of rent from the Appellant. If any rent
F
remains deposited by the Appellant in the Trial Court, the Respon-
dent shall be at liberty to withdraw the same forthwith.

In these circumstances, we direct that the entire costs throughout
shall be borne and paid by the Appellant.

G.N. Appeal disposed of.