MOHAN LAXMAN HEDE versus NOORMOHAMED ADAM SHAIKH

MOHAN LAXMAN HEDE versus NOORMOHAMED ADAM SHAIKH

Rent was deposited by the appellant with reasonable punctuality, fulfilling the requirement of regularity under Section 12(3)(b); exact or mathematical punctuality is not required to avoid eviction under this provision.

Parties
Appellant: Mohan Laxman Hede; Respondent: Noormohamed Adam Shaikh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Writ Petition Dismissal, After Trial Court and Additional District Judge Decisions
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree for eviction set aside; respondent's suit dismissed.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Deposit of Rent, Regularity of Payment, Standard Rent, Bona Fide Requirement
Landlord Tenant Rent Control Eviction Deposit of Rent Regularity of Payment Standard Rent Bona Fide Requirement

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohan Laxman Hede

Appellant

Noormohamed Adam Shaikh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Writ Petition Dismissal, After Trial Court and Additional District Judge Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant deposited rent with 'regularity' as required under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether exact punctuality is required in deposit of monthly rent to avoid eviction under Section 12(3)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the respondent established bona fide requirement for eviction

Ratio Decidendi

Rent was deposited by the appellant with reasonable punctuality, fulfilling the requirement of regularity under Section 12(3)(b); exact or mathematical punctuality is not required to avoid eviction under this provision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree for eviction set aside; respondent's suit dismissed.

Orders

  • The suit filed by the respondent stands dismissed.
  • Appellant to bear entire costs throughout.