Back
2003(2) Supreme 182
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
CJI and S.B. Sinha & A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Balwant Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Anand Kumar Sharma & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 910 of 2001
Decided on 28-1-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : S.B. Upadhyay, Amitesh Kumar, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advocates.
Held : (Referring to Section 11(1)(d) of Bihar Rent Act) : The provisions of the said Act would clearly show that unlike Rent Control Statutes of other States, the expression wilful default or habitual default has not been used therein. The words are is in arrears . In the event, rent for two months is not paid a cause of action arises. The statute mandates that the rent should be paid within the time fixed by the contract and in absence thereof by the last date of the month next following. The obligation on the part of the tenant to pay rent in the manner laid down under the Act, being a statutory one, he must comply therewith strictly. The statute, therefore, in other words, prescribes the period within which the rent must be rendered to the landlord by a tenant. When the statute lays down the period during which the rent is required to be paid or deposited, the same is required to be complied with. (Para 4)
Held after overruling 1987 Suppl. SCC 578 and 1996 PLR 110 (SC) : We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that by reason of the said two decisions the Full Bench decision of the High Court cannot be said to have been over-ruled. (Para 12)
Held finally : For aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. (Para 14)
JUDGMENT
Khare, CJI.-The appellants herein are the tenants. The landlord brought a suit for eviction of the tenant, inter alia on the ground of personal necessity as well as for default in payment of rent. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, the first appellate court allowed the appeal of landlord and thus the suit on the ground of default was decreed. The second appeal, by the tenants, was dismissed. The High Court held that mere acceptance of delayed rent by the Landlord did not amount to waiver of the right which was accrued to him under the Act and also the tenant has committed default in payment of the rent. It is against the said judgment, the tenants preferred present appeal by means of a special leave petition.
2. When the matter came up before a Bench of this Court, the Bench was of the view that as the case may require consideration of the correctness of the view taken by a Full Bench of Patna High Court in Raj Kumar Prasad vs. Uchit Narain Singh [AIR 1980 Patna (FB) 242] in view two decisions of this Court in Gowali Charan vs. Surendra Kumar Khandani and others (1987 Suppl. SCC 578) and Satyanarain Kandu vs. Smt. Hemlata and others (1996) PLR 110 SC) both by two-Judge Bench and as such has referred the matter to a Bench of three Ld. Judges. It is in this way, this matter has come up before us. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that view taken by the High Court is in conflict with the two decisions of this Court and therefore the Judgment under challenge deserved to be set aside. We do not find any merit in the argument for the reasons stated hereinafter.
3. Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act reads thus:
"11. Eviction of tenants - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in my contract or law to the contrary but subject to the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), and to those Section 18, where a tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to eviction therefrom except in execution of a decree passed by the Court on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) ...............
(b) ...............
(c) ...............
(d) Where the amount of two months rents, lawfully payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears by not having been paid within the time fixed by contract, or in the absence of such contract, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable or by not having been validly remitted or deposited in accordance with Section 16."
4. The provisions of the said Act would clearly show that unlike Rent Control Statutes of other States, the expression wilful default or habitual default has not been used therein. The words are is in arrears . In the event, rent for two months is not paid a cause of action arises. The statute mandates that the rent should be paid within the time fixed by the contract and in absence thereof by the last date of the month next following. The obligation on the part of the tenant to pay rent in the manner laid down under the Act, being a statutory one, he must comply therewith strictly. The statute, therefore, in other words, prescribes the period within which the rent must be rendered to the landlord by a tenant. When the statute lays down the period during which the rent is required to be paid or deposited, the same is required to be complied with.
5. Recently, in E. Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy (dead) by Lrs. and others (2003 (1) SCC 123), a Division Bench of this Court observed:
"...The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters...."
6. It is also pertinent to note that the Rent Control Act is not only a beneficial enac
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
