The High Court dismissed a revision application filed by the tenant challenging eviction orders passed under the Bombay Rent Act -- The landlord had purchased residential premises and sought eviction on grounds of arrears of rent from 01.05.1989 -- The tenant disputed the contractual rent and filed an application under Section 11 of the Rent Act to fix standard rent -- The Court fixed interim standard rent at Rs.94 per month -- Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court found the tenant liable for eviction under Section 12(3)(b) for failing to pay arrears before the first date of hearing -- The High Court upheld these findings, rejecting the tenant's argument that interim standard rent could not be equated with standard rent -- The Court emphasized that the statutory requirement under Section 12(3)(b) was clear and the tenant's non-compliance justified eviction.
The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissed a Civil Revision Application filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 -- The revision challenged the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court which had ordered eviction of the tenant under Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act -- The Court held that the tenant failed to pay arrears of standard rent before the first date of hearing despite having interim standard rent fixed at Rs.94 per month -- The distinction between interim standard rent and standard rent was acknowledged but found immaterial since the tenant did not comply with the statutory requirement -- The Court confirmed that non-payment of arrears before the first date of hearing disentitled the tenant from protection under Section 12(3)(b) -- The landlord's cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were also dismissed as the landlord accepted the Appellate Court's findings.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application and upheld the eviction decree -- The Court confirmed that the tenant failed to comply with Section 12(3)(b) by not paying arrears before the first date of hearing -- The distinction between interim standard rent and standard rent was found immaterial to the statutory requirement -- The landlord's cross-objections were also dismissed as the landlord accepted the Appellate Court's findings.
Citation: 2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 1
Case Number: R/Civil Revision Application No. 221 of 2004
Date of Decision: 2026-01-05
Case Title: The Issue of Consideration was whether the tenant was entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act when interim standard rent was fixed but the tenant failed to pay arrears before the first date of hearing
Before Judge: J. C. Doshi J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:GUJHC:596
Advocate(s): Mr Vishal C Mehta for applicants, Mr Harichandra K Barot for opponents
Appellant: Vaikunthrai Ramnikrai Vasavda since deceased through his heirs and others
Respondent: Kasturben Dayalal Pandya (deceased through legal heirs) and others
Nature of Litigation: Civil revision application challenging eviction decree under rent control legislation
Remedy Sought: Tenant seeking to set aside eviction order and revision of concurrent findings of lower courts
Filing Reason: Tenant aggrieved by Appellate Court's dismissal of appeal and confirmation of Trial Court's eviction decree
Previous Decisions: Trial Court passed eviction decree under Section 12(3)(b) of Rent Act on 06.02.2003 -- Appellate Court dismissed tenant's appeal and landlord's cross-objections on 29.03.2004
Issues: Whether the tenant was entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act when interim standard rent was fixed but arrears were not paid before the first date of hearing Whether the distinction between interim standard rent and standard rent affected the tenant's obligation under Section 12(3)(b)
Submissions/Arguments: Tenant's counsel argued that interim standard rent cannot be equated with standard rent as interim rent can be varied -- Tenant contended that application under Section 11 should have been decided before first date of hearing -- Tenant relied on judgments in R.N.Suthar v/s. C.D.Patel and Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed v/s. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai
Ratio Decidendi: The tenant must pay or deposit arrears of standard rent before the first date of hearing to claim protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act -- The fixation of interim standard rent does not relieve the tenant from this statutory obligation -- Non-compliance with this requirement justifies eviction under the Rent Act.
Judgment Excerpts: This Revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act stem from common judgment and decree delivered on 29.03.2004 Landlord purchased residential premises by way of registered sale deed on 11.05.1995 with right to recover arrears of rent commencing from 01.05.1989 Notice under section 12(2) of the Rent Act was sent by landlord to tenant demanding arrears of rent due from 01.05.1989 Tenant replying the statutory notice, within one month from the date of receipt of notice raised contention that contractual rent of Rs.100/- claimed by the landlord is exorbitant, excessive and not standard rent Learned Trial Court passed judgment and decree in favour of the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent and directed tenant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta submitted that learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have gravely erred in understanding provision of section 12(3)(b) read with section 11 of the Rent Act
Procedural History: Landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.262 of 1995 for eviction -- Trial Court passed eviction decree on 06.02.2003 -- Tenant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.27 of 2003 -- Landlord filed cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC -- Appellate Court dismissed both appeal and cross-objections on 29.03.2004 -- Tenant filed Civil Revision Application No.221 of 2004 -- High Court reserved judgment on 17.12.2025 and pronounced on 05.01.2026
