1. Eviction of tenant for two-day delay in depositing monthly rent under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. (Para 1 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
GOPAL CHANDRA GHOSH
Versus
RENU BALA MAJUMDAR (SMT) AND ANOTHER
Civil Appeal No. 1325 of 1988{From the Judgment and Order dated April 7, 1987 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 208 of 1987}, decided on January 12, 1994
Advocates appeared :
Dr S. Ghosh, Senior Advocate (G.S. Chatterjee, D.P. Mukherjee and A. Banerjee, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
A.K. Ganguli, Senior Advocate (Ms Mridula Ray, Dr S. Bharadwaj and S.S. Ray, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Advocates:
A.BANERJEE, A.K.GANGULY, D.P.MUKHERJI, G.S.CHATTERJEE, MRIDULA RAY BHARDVAJ, S.BHARDVAJ, S.GHOSH, S.S.RAY
A.BANERJEE, A.K.GANGULY, D.P.MUKHERJI, G.S.CHATTERJEE, MRIDULA RAY BHARDVAJ, S.BHARDVAJ, S.GHOSH, S.S.RAY
Important Points
Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, is directory, not mandatory. As a beneficial statute, technical delays in rent deposit should not automatically lead to eviction, and the landlord must still prove the grounds for eviction even if the tenant's defense is struck off.
Subject
Eviction - Rent Default
Act Referred
Headnote
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Section 17 - Limitation Act - Sections 4 and 17(1) - appellant has come to be evicted from premises on his failure to deposit rent within December 15, 1984, which is held to have incurred wrath of Section 17 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - There is no dispute rent was deposited - There was thus, if at all, delay of two days - This would even be not so, if notice is taken of the fact that 16th was a Sunday, which shows that 15th was a Saturday - If it would have been a half-working day, Explanation to Section 4 of the Limitation Act would have taken care of 15th as well, in which case there would have been no delay at all – Held, Court hold that the present case was covered by sub-section (3) which was held to be directory SCC would be more so while deciding whether to order for eviction - Courts below under no obligation to order for eviction merely because of two days delay in deposit of rent by appellant - Sub-section (3) permits striking off defence and requires proceeding with the hearing of the suit - So merely because defence is struck off, order of eviction will not follow automatically landlord shall have to prove dehors defence of tenant, that a case for eviction has been made out - Court do not agree with nothing would be required to be proved by a landlord in a case based on allegation of default - Plea of default shall have to be established as any other plea is required by law - we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned decree of eviction – Ordered Accordingly
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 17(3) is mandatory or directory and whether technical delays in rent deposit justify eviction under a beneficent statute. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 )
3. Beneficent statutes must be interpreted to advance tenant protection, prioritizing substance over technicalities to prevent injustice and loss of livelihood. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is directory; technical delays in rent deposit do not automatically mandate eviction. (Para 11 , 15 )
5. Appeal allowed and decree of eviction set aside. (Para 17 )
6. Is Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, mandatory or directory?
Section 17(3) is directory. The court held that the word shall in the provision should be read as may, meaning courts are not obligated to strike off a defence or order eviction for technical delays. (Para 6 , 15 )
7. How should a beneficent statute like the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act be interpreted regarding technical violations?
Such statutes should be construed to advance the legislative purpose of protecting tenants. Substance must prevail over form, and technicalities should not be used to deprive a tenant of their livelihood. (Para 12 )
8. Does striking off a tenant's defence under Section 17(3) automatically result in an order of eviction?
No. Even if the defence is struck off, the landlord must still prove the case for eviction independently of the tenant's defence. (Para 15 )
9. Which subsection of Section 17 applies when a tenant fails to deposit rent as required by subsection (1)?
Such a failure attracts subsection (3), which deals with the failure to deposit or pay amounts, rather than subsection (4), which applies when a tenant makes the required deposit. (Para 13 , 14 )
Judgment
HANSARIA, J.- The appellant has come to be evicted from the premises (a shop room) on his failure to deposit rent for November 1984 within December 15, 1984, which is held to have incurred the wrath of Section 17 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). There is no dispute that the rent was deposited on December 17, 1984. There was thus, if at all, delay of two days. This would even be not so, if notice is taken of the fact that 16th was a Sunday, which shows that 15th was a Saturday. If it would have been a half-working day, Explanation to Section 4 of the Limitation Act would have taken care of 15th as well, in which case there would have been no delay at all.
2. Let it be seen whether the provision of Section 17 is really so harsh as to deny benefit of a beneficent statute like the Act at hand, even if there was delay of two days in depositing the rent.
3. The eviction order came to be passed on a suit filed by the respondents sometime in 1980 in which eviction was prayed on three grounds:
(a) Bona fide requirement of the premises;
(b) sub-letting of the premises by the appellant; and
(c) default in paying rent from the month of November 1979 onwards.
4. The trial court as well as the first appellate court did not accept the case of the respondents insofar as first two grounds are concerned. As to the third, there is no finding of default as averred. What, however, happened was that the appellant failed to deposit rent for the month of November 1984 within the time visualised by Section 17(1) of the Act, which ultimately led to the passing of the order of eviction against him. As already stated this came to happen because it has been held by the courts below that that is the mandate of Section 17 of the Act.
5. For understanding the contentions advanced by the learned counsel of the parties, it would be necessary to note Section 17 in its entirety, which at the relevant time read as below :
"17. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction.- (1) On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 13, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him, or where he appears in the suit or proceeding without the writ of summons being served on him, within one month of his appearance deposit in Court or with the Controller or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of eight and one-third per cent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable up to the date of deposit, and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate." (emphasis supplied)
(2) If in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the tenant shall, within the time specified in sub-section (1), deposit in court the amount admitted by him to be due from him together with an application to the court for determination of the rent payable. No such deposit shall be accepted unless it is accompanied by an application for determination of the rent payable. On receipt of such application, the court shall-
(a) having regard to the rate at which rent was last paid, and the period for which default may have been made, by the tenant, make, as soon as possible within a period not exceeding one year, a preliminary order, pending final decision of the dispute, specifying the amount, if any, due from the tenant and thereupon the tenant shall, within one month of the date of such preliminary order, deposit in court or pay to the landlord
