In Mranalini B. Shah v. Bapalal Mohanlal Shah, the Supreme court has observed:
"The above enunciation, clarified beyond doubt that the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 12(3) are mandatory, and must be strictly complied with by the tenant during the pendency of the suit or appeal if the landlord's claim for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent is to eg defeated. The word "regularly" in Clause (b) of Section 12(3) has a significance of its own. It enjoins a payment or tender characterised by reasonable punctuality, that is to say, one made at regular times or intervals. The regularity contemplated may not be a punctuality, of clock-like precision and exactitude, but it must reasonably conform with substantial proximity to the sequence of times or intervals at which the rent falls due. Thus, where the rent is payable by the month, the tenant must, if he wants to avail of the benefit of the latter part of Clause (b), tender or pay it every month as it falls due, or at his discretion in advance. If he persistently defaults during the pendency of the suit or appeal in paying the rent, such as where he pays it at irregular intervals of 2 or 3 or 4 months - as is the case before us - the court has no discretion to treat what were manifestly irregular payments, as substantial compliance with the mandate of this clause, irrespective of the fact that by the time the judgment was pronounced all the arrears had been cleared by the tenant."
This passage was quoted with approval by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court in Mohan Laxman Hede v. Noormohamed Adam Shaikh reported in MANU/SC/0286/1988 : [1988]3SCR461 . The present case is exactly like the case of Mranalini Shah wherein the tenant was depositing the rent at irregular intervals. On every occasion of deposit, the tenant was in arrears of rent for 2 to 4 months. In the circumstances, the appellate Court was right in passing a decree for possession Under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act.
Equivalent Citation: 2005(2)BomCR463, 2005(107(1))BOMLR118, 2004(4)MhLj1020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition No. 929 of 1999
Decided On: 22.06.2004
Shri Lalji Ramnath Pande Vs. Smt. Hawabi Abdulla Shaikh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
D.G. Karnik, J.
D.G. Karnik, J.
