SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 640

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal and Amitava Roy, JJ.
Monoj Lal Seal and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
Octavious Tea and Industries Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3786 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20281 of 2014)
Decided On : 21-04-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : P.P. Rao, Bhaskar Gupta, Sr. Advs., Pranab Kumar Mullick, Soma Mullick and Sebat Kumar D., Advs.
For Respondents: A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Pinaki Addy, Dev Mukherjee and Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs.

IMPORTANT POINT
Rent control laws provide protection to tenants from illegal eviction. But the protection is subject to strict compliance with the statutory provisions.

Headnote:(a) Rent control laws – Enacted for protection of tenants from illegal eviction – The protection, however, is subject to strict compliance with the statutory provisions. (Para 28)

       (b) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Section 7(1) – Original section 7(1) amended and words ‘Rent Controller’ substituted by ‘Civil Judge’ – Respondent, however, depositing rent with the Rent controller despite the amendment – May be deliberate or bona fide mistake – Supreme Court giving liberty to respondent to satisfy the trial court about its bona fide – Trial court rejecting respondent’s plea – High Court refusing to interfere – No infirmity. (Para 29)

       (2003) 1 SCC 123; (2005) 7 SCC 211; (2009) 7 SCC 658; (2003) 3 SCC 433; (1998) 4 SCC 409; (1981) 1 SCR 476; (1990) 2 SCC 134; (1974) 1 SCC 242 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The Appellants-Plaintiffs instituted a suit against the Respondent for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity before the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in respect of the suit premises.

       The Respondent filed two applications, u/s 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. On 11.4.2008, the application u/s 7(1) of the 1997 Act was allowed permitting the Defendant-Respondent to deposit the arrears of rent as prayed for in the said application and thereafter month by month in the Court within the scheduled date as per law. The Respondent, thereafter, is alleged to have continuously defaulted in payment of rent despite the order.

       The Respondent-tenant filed an application u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to deposit the rents for the month of April, 2008 to March, 2010 along with current rent before the trial court. That application was rejected.

       The Respondent then moved a revision petition before the High Court which was rejected.

       The Respondent had challenged High Court's order by way of review application, which was rejected by the High Court on both merits and delay. Thereafter, Respondent moved the Apex Court by way of special leave petition which was dismissed on 29.7.2013.

       After disposing of application u/s 7(1), the trial Judge disposed of the application u/s 7(2) of the 1997 Act on 19.1.2012 with the direction to the Respondent-tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 91,419/- within thirty days from the date of the order. However, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed an application for recall of order dated 19.1.2012. The said application was rejected holding that the trial Judge had no power to review his own order and accordingly he fixed the next date for framing of issues in the matter.

       Appellants, therefore, preferred civil revision petition against the Presidency Small Causes Court order allowing the application of the Respondent tenant u/s 7(2) of the Act, thereby rendering the remedy of the Appellants Under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act, infructuous. However, this revision petition was dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment does not need interference.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 27.3.2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Company No. 914 of 2012 dismissing the application filed by the Appellants and upholding the orders dated 19.1.2012 and 21.2.2012 passed by 5th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 49 of 2008-E and rejecting the application for review of the order passed Under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

4. The father of Appellant No. 1 was owner of a two storied building in a posh locality in South Kolkata (near Park Street) with a covered area of about 4650 sq. ft. on the rent of only Rs. 429/- per month. The tenancy of the Respondent was attorned by the Official Trustee of West Bengal in favour of Appellant No. 1 herein and since then the Respondent-tenant, which is a corporate house is occupying the entire first floor of the building.

5. It is case of the Appellants that the Respondent has embroiled the Appellants (owner-landlord) in a series of litigations. It had earlier tried to encroach upon the lawn resulting in litigation which even came up to this Court.

6. The Appellants-Plaintiffs instituted a suit against the Respondent for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity before the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in respect of the suit premises. The suit was contested by the Respondent, who after appearance filed two applications, one Under Section 7(1) and another Under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 1997 Act'). On 11.4.2008, the application Under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act was allowed permitting the Defendant-Respondent to deposit the arrears of rent as prayed for in the said application and thereafter month by month in the Court within the scheduled date as per law. The Respondent, thereafter, alleged to have continuously defaulted in payment of rent despite order to pay rent was passed by the Court Under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act.

7. Appellant's further case is that instead of depositing the monthly rent before the Civil Judge, tenant had deposited monthly rent with the Rent Controller and on 17.6.2010, the Respondent-tenant filed an application Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to deposit the rents for the month of April, 2008 to March, 2010 along with current rent before the trial court. That application was rejected by the trial Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent then moved a revision petition before the High Court being Company No. 2964 of 2010, which was rejected by order dated 5.1.2011 holding that the tenant was bound to comply with the directions of Section 7(1) of the Rent Act. On 26.8.2011, Respondent filed another application Under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure before the trial Judge seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent, and that application was also rejected.

8. It is worth to mention here that Respondent had challenged High Court's order dated 5.1.2011 by way of review application, which was rejected by the High Court on both merits and delay. Thereafter, Respondent moved the Apex Court Under Article 136 of the Constitution by way of special leave petition being SLP (Civil) Nos. 20181-82 of 2013, which was dismissed on 29.7.2013 leaving it open to the SLP Petitioner (Respondent herein) to raise all questions before the court below where the trial is pending including the default alleged against him so as to consider whether the same can be treated as bonafide in order to satisfy the condition laid down Under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

9. After disposing of application Under Section 7(1), the trial Judge disposed of the application Under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act on 19.1.2012 with the direction to the Respondent-tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 91,419/- with















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top