Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Udyomal Nathumal And Anr. vs Premchand Trikamdas Baswanl on 31 March, 1980

Gulamnabi Gulam Akbar vs Haji Ismail Isakji Patel on 28 March, 1995

7. The learned Counsel urges that the terminology employed in Section 12(3)(a) of the Act pre-supposes the neglect on the part of the tenant to make the payment of the amount demanded until the expiration of the period of one month after the notice referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. It is indeed, true that the verbalism used is 'that the tenant neglects to make the payment thereof. Placing heavy reliance upon this language used in this relevant provision, the learned Counsel urges that unless and until the state of mind which would reflect the neglect on the part of the tenant is established, the decree of eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act could not be passed. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in Udyomal Nathumal and Anr. v. Premchand Trikamdas Baswani (1980) XXI GLR 869. After the narration of the tale-telling circumstances alleged, the tenant falling sick and suffering loss in his business and after the notice, the tenant offering to pay the arrears of rent by instalments and the employer of the tenant giving an assurance on behalf of the tenant, it has been said that the Legislature clearly intended that, unless the tenant is having that particular mental state of negligence, that is, not to pay to the landlord on account of negligence, the eviction decree should not be passed against the tenant. Learned Counsel Mr. Desai urges that this decision rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court, way back in the year 1980, calls for the establishment of a peculiar mental state of negligence on the part of the defaulting tenant. It is also the contention coming from the learned Counsel that the said decision of this Court has been based upon an unreported decision of the Supreme Court, as it is clear from paragraph 20 of this decision. Mr. Desai is right in his submission that such a view has been taken by this Court and probably the reliance has been placed upon some unreported decision render by the Supreme Court on October 12, 1979. But all the above said decisions which speak of a must for passing the decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act, show that if the requirements are established, the Court shall have to pass a decree. The concept of 'that peculiar mental state of negligence' or of 'a negative stance on the part of the tenant' has not been recognised by those decisions. Naturally, therefore, when such a concept has not been recognised by the catena of decisions in this respect, and the contention coming from learned Counsel Mr. Desai in this repect, cannot be accepted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1