- (1.) This appeal by Special Leave arises from the judgment of the Bombay High Court, made on July 17, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 1814 of 1996.
(2.) The admitted facts are that one Jagmohandas was the original tenant and the appellant is his brother. The landlords were Jayabai G. Ashar, Bachubhai alias Brijkuvar Bhagwandas, Krishnakumar alias Krishnadas Bhagwandas and Harikrishna C. Shantabai alias Malabai. After the demise of his brother, the appellant became the tenant and paid the rent to the landlords. On March 10, 1981, the landlords wrote a letter directing the appellant to pay rent jointly to one Shivajibhai Patel and one Ratilal Patel w.e.f. November 1, 1980. The appellant acted upon the letter and sent to the aforesaid two persons on May 6, 1981 the rents payable from November 1, 1980 to April 30, 1980. The said cheque was returned to the appellant as being not acceptable. Subsequently, he was in the dark as to whom the rent was to be paid. It would appear that the landlords earlier to their letter dated March 10, 1981, had entered into an agreement with the respondent on September 27, 1980 and pursuant thereto, the sale deed came to be executed and registered on July 10, 1984 in favour of the respondents but no attornment was made.
(3.) For the first time, Shri N. G. Gaikwad, Advocate, Nasik on instructions of respondent No. 1 sent a notice dated September 29, 1986 to the appellant to pay the arrears of rents from November 1, 1982 to the respondents. The appellant on receipt thereof has sent on October 15, 1986, the rent in the form of a cheque for Rs. 2,952/- in the name of Shri Gaikwad, which was rejected by him and thereafter the suit for ejectment came to be filed. The defence taken by the appellant is that he paid the rent within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice demanding the payment of rent and, therefore, he was not in default. The question, therefore, is:whether the appellant has committed any default in the payment of the rent Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 envisages thus: "12. (1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenants pays, or is 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 a landlord against tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration 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 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (3)(a) Where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted 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 Court shall pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession." ;