ARJUN KHIAMAL MAKHIJANI ETC. versus JAMNADAS C. TULIANI & ORS. ETC.

ARJUN KHIAMAL MAKHIJANI ETC. versus JAMNADAS C. TULIANI & ORS. ETC.

Where a tenant is in arrears of rent for more than six months, fails to pay within one month of notice and raises no standard rent dispute, eviction under Section 12(3)(a) is mandatory. The words 'such other date as the Court may fix' in Section 12(3) do not allow creating an artificial first day of hearing by reopening proceedings. The benefit of amended Section 12(3) cannot be given retrospectively by reopening concluded suits, nor does it protect a trespasser in the guise of sub-tenant. Admissions in pleadings do not bind contesting parties where circumstances require evidence de hors such admissions.

Parties
Appellant/defendant No. 6: Arjun Khiamal Makhijani; Appellants/tenants/defendants 1 5: Prithdayal Chetandas and others; Respondent No. 1/plaintiff/landlord: Jamnadas C. Tuliani
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 October 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Civil Appellate Review From Bombay High Court, Against Dismissal of Writ Petitions, Arising From Trial and Appellate Decrees in Landlord's Suit for Ejectment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction of Tenant for Rent Default, Retrospective Effect of Amendment, Effect of Amendment on Pending Proceedings, Illegal Sub Letting and Trespass, Admissions in Pleadings, Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation
Tenancy Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Eviction of Tenant for Rent Default Retrospective Effect of Amendment Effect of Amendment on Pending Proceedings Illegal Sub Letting and Trespass Admissions in Pleadings +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arjun Khiamal Makhijani

Appellant/defendant No. 6

Prithdayal Chetandas and others

Appellants/tenants/defendants 1 5

Jamnadas C. Tuliani

Respondent No. 1/plaintiff/landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Civil Appellate Review From Bombay High Court, Against Dismissal of Writ Petitions, Arising From Trial and Appellate Decrees in Landlord's Suit for Ejectment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenants are liable for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 due to default in rent payment
  2. 2 Whether tenants or sub-tenant (appellant) entitled to benefit of amended Section 12(3) and Section 15(2) of the 1947 Act
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of 'first day of hearing' and 'such other date' under Section 12(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Where a tenant is in arrears of rent for more than six months, fails to pay within one month of notice and raises no standard rent dispute, eviction under Section 12(3)(a) is mandatory. The words 'such other date as the Court may fix' in Section 12(3) do not allow creating an artificial first day of hearing by reopening proceedings. The benefit of amended Section 12(3) cannot be given retrospectively by reopening concluded suits, nor does it protect a trespasser in the guise of sub-tenant. Admissions in pleadings do not bind contesting parties where circumstances require evidence de hors such admissions.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs; parties to bear their own costs