TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bombay High Court set aside the judgment of the appellate court and restored that of the trial court. This appeal, by the tenants, is against the judgment of the High Court. The suit premises was rented to the appellants for residential purposes at a monthly rent of ₹ 70/-. The rent was, later on, increased to ₹ 80/-. The landlady served a notice dated July 28, 1972 terminating the appellants tenancy on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement by her. It was mentioned in the notice that arrears of rent from April 1, 1971 were due from the tenants. As far as the bona fide requirement is concerned the trial court rejected the case of the landlady. On the issue of arrears of rent the trial court ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant 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 nonpayment of the standard rent or permitted increase due, until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increase 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 mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gust 1, 1972 and they sent the first money order on September 1, 1972. The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the money order, having been sent on September 1, 1972, was within the period of one month after notice referred to in sub- Section 2 . The High Court, however, fell into patent error in reaching the conclusion that the actual payment having not been received by the landlady within the said period there was neglect on the part of the tenants to make payment. The sine qua non for eviction of a tenant under Section 12(3)(a) is the neglect to make payment and not the actual making of the payment . When a money order or a demand draft is sent to the landlord, during the specified period, it cannot be said that the te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
