1. Ejectment suit under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act — Dispute over rent deposit with Rent Controller versus mandatory deposit in Court under Section 17(1). (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
11th February, 1965.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Kaluran Onkarnal and another, Appellants
Versus
Baidyanath Gorain, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 875 of 1964.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; M/s. P. K. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee Advocates, for Respondent.
Advocates:
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, D.N.MUKHERJI, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.CHATTERJI
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, D.N.MUKHERJI, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.CHATTERJI
In eviction suits, the special statutory requirement to deposit rent in Court under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act prevails over the general provision to deposit rent with the Rent Controller; failure to deposit in Court justifies striking out the tenant's defense.
Headnote:(A) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 13, 17, 21 and 22 - Eviction of tenant - Deposit of rent - Conflict between statutory obligation to deposit rent in Court during pendency of suit and general provision for deposit with Rent Controller - Once a suit for eviction is instituted on grounds referred to in Section 13, the tenant is required to deposit rent in Court as per Section 17(1) - Failure to comply with Section 17(1) attracts the penalty under Section 17(3), namely striking out of the defense - A valid deposit made with the Rent Controller under Section 21 and Section 22(3) does not satisfy the requirements of Section 17(1) - Section 17 is a special provision that prevails over the general provisions of Sections 21 and 22 once the suit is filed and the summons served. (Paras 14, 15, 17)
(B) Statutory Obligation vs. Contractual Obligation - Deposit under Section 21 is based on the contractual obligation to pay rent when the landlord refuses acceptance - Deposit under Section 17(1) is a statutory obligation imposed by law to ensure payment is made in Court to avoid disputes during litigation - The two operate in different fields and the special statutory requirement of Section 17(1) must be complied with regardless of any prior deposits with the Rent Controller. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
A tenant was sued for ejectment on grounds including the need for rebuilding, unlawful subletting, and default in rent. The tenant contended that rent had been regularly deposited with the Rent Controller as the landlord refused to accept it. The landlord applied to have the tenant's defense struck out on the ground that the tenant failed to deposit the rent in Court as required by the statutory provisions applicable upon the institution of an eviction suit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the tenant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to deposit rent in Court within the prescribed period after the service of the summons, despite having deposited rent with the Rent Controller.
Issues: Whether a valid deposit of rent made with the Rent Controller under the general provisions of the Act constitutes payment of rent sufficient to prevent the striking out of the tenant's defense under the special provisions governing eviction suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 17 is a special provision that governs the relationship between landlord and tenant once an eviction suit is instituted. It creates a complete and independent statutory scheme. While Sections 21 and 22 provide a general mechanism for depositing rent, they do not override the specific requirement of Section 17(1) to deposit rent in Court. The statutory obligation to deposit in Court is distinct from the contractual obligation to pay rent, and failure to adhere to the former justifies the striking out of the defense under Section 17(3).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether valid rent deposits with the Rent Controller under Section 21 and 22(3) preclude striking out of defense under Section 17(3) for non-payment in Court. (Para 4 , 9 , 12 )
3. Section 17(1) is a special provision governing rent payment during eviction proceedings, superseding general deposit provisions under Sections 21 and 22 once a suit is instituted. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 )
4. Statutory obligation to deposit rent in Court under Section 17(1) prevails over general deposits with the Rent Controller under Sections 21 and 22 during eviction proceedings. (Para 14 , 17 , 19 , 23 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Order striking out the tenant's defense under Section 17(3) upheld. (Para 24 )
6. Does a valid deposit of rent with the Rent Controller under Section 21 exempt a tenant from depositing rent in Court under Section 17(1) during an eviction suit?
No. Section 17(1) is a special provision that comes into operation once a suit for eviction is instituted. After the one-month grace period from the service of summons, the tenant must deposit rent in Court, regardless of any previous or continuing deposits with the Rent Controller. (Para 14 , 17 , 23 )
7. Does Section 17(1) override contractual agreements regarding the timing of rent payments?
Yes. Section 17(1) imposes a statutory obligation to pay rent by the 15th of each succeeding month, which supersedes any contractual agreement regarding the time for payment, such as quarterly or annual payment terms. (Para 18 , 19 )
8. What is the legal consequence if a tenant fails to deposit rent in Court as required by Section 17(1)?
Under Section 17(3), if a tenant fails to deposit or pay the amount required by Section 17(1) or 17(2), the Court shall order the defense against delivery of possession to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the suit. (Para 7 , 9 )
9. Do the provisions of Section 22 apply after a suit for recovery of possession has been instituted?
The court observed that Section 22(2) suggests the provisions of Section 22 are not intended to apply after suits or proceedings have commenced between the landlord and the tenant. (Para 22 )
Judgement
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: Appellant No. 1 Kaluram Onkarmal, was let into possession of the premises described as holding No. 182 H, G. T. Road, Asansol as a monthly tenant under Harbhajan Singh Wasal who was the owner of the said premises. The rent agreed to be paid was Rs. 35 per month payable accruing to the English Calendar. It appears that in 1953, the Calcutta National Bank Ltd. (now in liquidation) sued the owner Wasal on the original side of the Calcutta High Court on a mortgage. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed and in due course, it was followed by a final decree. During the proceedings of the said suit. Mr. K. K. Ghose was appointed Receiver of the mortgaged properties, including the premises in the present suit. On February 18, 1960, the Receiver put the mortgaged properties to sale and the respondent, Baidynath Gorain, purchased them. The said sale was confirmed by the Calcutta High Court on March 1, 1960. That is how the respondent became the owner of the suit premises along with other properties under mortgage. After he acquired title to the suit premises in this manner, the respondent informed appellant No. 1 about the same by his letter dated the 2nd April, 1960.
2. On December 11, 1961, the respondent sued appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 Kalurarn Bajranglal in the First Court of the Munsif at Asansol for ejectment. He claimed vacant possession of the premises let out to appellant No. 1 on several grounds. He urged that he reasonably required the premises for rebuilding them after demolishing the existing structure. According to him, the existing structure had become very old and was in a dilapidated condition. He also alleged that appellant No. 1 had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to appellant No. 2, and that he had failed to pay or deposit the rents for the last three years in accordance with law.
3. The claim for ejectment thus made by the respondent was disputed by appellant No. 1 on several grounds. Appellant No. 1 denied that the respondent required the suit premises for rebuilding, and also disputed his allegation that he had sub-let the said premises unlawfully. In regard to the averment made by the respondent that appellant No. 1 had failed to pay or deposit the rents due for the last three years, appellant No. 1 made a detailed denial. He urged that the rents had been regularly paid to the owner in time before August, 1960, and he pleaded that since the month of August, 1960 when he found that the owner was not prepared to accept the rents from him, he deposited them with the House Rent Controller, Asansol, from month to month. It was his case that notice had been served on the owner in respect of these deposits from month to month as provided by S. 21(3) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act XII of 1956) (hereinafter called the Act ). The written statement further averred that the deposit of the monthly rent continued to be made regularly under S. 21 and that the rent for March, 1962 had been duly deposited on April 10, 1962. This written statement was filed on April 11, 1962.
4. During the pendency of this suit, the respondent made an application under S. 17(3) of the Act and claimed that the defence of appellant No. 1 against delivery of possession should be struck out, because he had failed to deposit on pay the amount in Court as required by S. 17(1) of the Act. This application was strenuously opposed by appellant No. 1 on the ground that S. 17(3) could not be invoked against him in view of the fact that he had been depositing the rent from month to month under S. 21, and he urged that the deposit of rent thus made by him amounted to payment of rent by him to the respondent under S. 22(3) and, therefore, no default had been committed by him at all. This dispute raised the question about the true scope and effect of the provision of S. 17 (3) and S. 22(3) of the Act. The learned trial Judge held that notwithstanding the fact that appellant No. 1 had been
