B.L.HANSARIA, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
GOPAL CHANDRA GHOSH – Appellant
Versus
RENU BALA MAJUMDAR – Respondent
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 o
relied on : Union of India v. Philip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama
followed : B.P. Khernka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick
Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas
distinguished : VedPrakash Wadhwa v. Vishwa Mohan
referred to : Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.