Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"It is clear to us that the Act interferes with the landlord's right to property and freedom of contract only for the limited purpose of protecting tenants from misuse of the landlord's power to evict them, in these days of scarcity of accommodation, by asserting his superior rights in property or trying to exploit his position by extracting too high rents from helpless tenants. The object was not to deprive the landlord altogether of his rights in property which have also to be respected. Another object was to make possible eviction of tenants who fail to carry out their obligation to pay rent to the landlord despite opportunities given by law in that behalf. Thus, Sec. 12(3)(a) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Court to pass a decree when its conditions are satisfied as was pointed out by one of us (Bhagwati, J) in Ratilal Balabhai Nazar v. Ranchodbhai Shankerbhai Patel and Ors. AIR 1968 Gujarat 172: IX GLR 48. If there is statutory default or neglect on the part of the tenant, whatever may be its cause, the landlord acquires a right under Sec. 12(3)(a) to get a decree for eviction. But where the conditions of Sec. 12(3)(a) are not satisfied, there is a further opportunity given to the tenant to protect himself against eviction. He can comply with the conditions set out in Sec. 12(3)(b) and defeat the landlord's claim for eviction. If, however, he does not fulfill those conditions, he cannot claim the protection of Sec. 12(3)(b) and in that event, there being no other protection available to him, a decree for eviction would have to go against him. It is difficult to see how by any judicial valour discretion exercisable in favour of the tenant can be found in Sec. 12(3)(b) even where the conditions laid down by it are satisfied to be strictly confined within the limits prescribed for their operation. We think that Chagla, C.J., was doing nothing less than legislating in Kalidas Bhavan's case 60 Bom. L.R. 1359, in converting the provisions of Sec. 12(3)(b) into a sort of discretionary jurisdiction of the Court to relieve tenants from hardship. The decisions of this Court referred to above, in any case, make the position quite clear. Sec. 12(3)(b) does not create any discretionary jurisdiction in the Court. It provides protection to the tenant on certain conditions and these conditions have to be strictly observed by the tenant who seeks the benefit of the Section. If the statutory provisions do not go for enough to relieve the hardship of the tenant the remedy lies with the legislature. It is not in the hands of Courts."