YUSUFBHAINOORMOHAMMEDJODHPURWALA v. MOHMMED SABIR IBRAHIM BYAVARWALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of with no
Provisions considered
- House Rates Control Act, 1947
- Bombay Rent Act ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1)(g)
- Bombay Rent Act, 1947 s. 12(3)(b)
Judgment
HELD: The tenant was in arrears of rent prior to the filing of the suit and continued to be so. On the date of the first hearing of the suit, there was short-fall in the payment of rent. Therefore, even assuming that the G respondent is a bonafide tenant the right that is conferred upon hi1J1 by the legislature can be availed of only twice and on both occasions the tenant was found to, be in arrears. The High Court was wrong in interpreting H 1200 YUSUFBHAINOORMOHAMMED JODHPURWALA v. MOHD. 1201 SABIR IBRAHIM BYAVARWALA Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging A House Rates Control Act, 1947, purposively holding that so long as the High Court, in its discretion, feels that there is a readiness and. willingness on the part of the tenant to pay rent, the High Court can in its discretion say that substantial compliance of Section 12(3)(b) is B good enough for the tenant to escape eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. Since s.12(3)(b) is construed to be a mandatory provision which must be strictly complied with. The order of High Court is set aside, and that of the appellate bench is restored. C [Para 9][1209-E-H; 1210-A-B]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Special Leave Petition is disposed of with no
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
House Rates Control Act, 1947; Bombay Rent Act — ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1)(g); Bombay Rent Act, 1947 — s. 12(3)(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Supreme Court of India, on 09 Mar 1987. The bench was DIPAK MISRA, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, UDAY UMESH LAUT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.