HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. K. DUTTA
RATAN LAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
JEZER BROS. (P) LTD - Respondent
. Of .
Decided On : May 31, 1971
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 17D - INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD "DECREE" - EXECUTABLE DECREE - MERGER OF DECREES - APPLICABILITY OF DOCTRINE OF MERGER IN EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS - EFFECT OF APPELLATE DECREE DISMISSING APPEAL ON EXECUTION OF ORIGINAL DECREE.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed an application under Section 17D(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, to set aside a decree for recovery of possession passed against him. The trial court rejected the application as not maintainable. The tenant challenged this order in a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the word "decree" in Section 17D(1) of the Act refers to an executable decree, which is the decree passed by the court of first instance or by a court exercising appellate jurisdiction, and not the decree of the appellate court which merely dismisses the appeal. The court further held that the doctrine of merger of decrees does not apply in cases where the appellate court merely dismisses the appeal, and the original decree remains executable.
Issues: 1. Whether the word "decree" in Section 17D(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, refers to an executable decree or the decree of the appellate court which dismisses the appeal. 2. Whether the doctrine of merger of decrees applies in cases where the appellate court merely dismisses the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the word "decree" in Section 17D(1) of the Act in light of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It held that the word "decree" refers to an executable decree, which is the decree passed by the court of first instance or by a court exercising appellate jurisdiction. 2. The court held that the doctrine of merger of decrees does not apply in cases where the appellate court merely dismisses the appeal. The court distinguished cases where the appellate court modifies or varies the decree from cases where the appellate court merely dismisses the appeal. In the latter case, the original decree remains executable.
Final Decision: The court made the revision petition absolute, set aside the order of the trial court, and held that the application filed by the tenant under Section 17D(1) of the Act was maintainable.
( 1 ) THIS rule was obtained by the tenant defendant against Order No. 47, dated July 15, 1970 passed by the trial court rejecting his application under section 17d (1) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as not maintainable.
( 2 ) THE point for determination in this rule is the interpretation of the word ? decree? in section 17d of the Act. This section, a new section, was inserted in the Act, with retrospective effect, by section 5 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 (West Bengal Act XXXIV of 1969) hereinafter referred to as 1969 Act. Sub-section (1) provided as follows: 17d (1)?while before the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1968, (President's Act 4 of 1968), a decree for the recovery of possession of any premises was passed - (a)in a suit under this Act, in which no order had been made under sub-section (3) of section 17 striking out defence against delivery of possession, only on the ground referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, or (b)in a suit under West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, (West Bengal Act XVII of 1950), by reason only by clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 12 of that Act, but the possession of such premises had not been recovered from the tenant by the execution of the decree, the tenant may within a period of sixty days from the date of commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969, make an application to the Court which passed the decree to set aside the decree. Explanation - where the decree was passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, an application under this sub-section shall be made to the Court of first instance. ? Under sub-section (2), on such application being made, all proceedings in execution of the decree is to remain stayed pending its disposal. In sub-section (3), provision has been made, on such application, for determination of rent by court on hearing such evidence as may be adduced by the parties, in case of decree the tenant was liable to deposit or pay under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 17 during the period ending with the date of the decree after giving credit for deposits or payment under above provisions and in case of decree under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 1950 Act) the total amount the tenant was liable to deposit on account of rent including arrears of rent for the period ending with the date of the decree had an order us 14 (4) was made, after giving credit of every deposit made by the tenant during the period, and, in either case, the total amount from the date of the decree till the date of the order calculated on the basis of the monthly sum equivalent to the rent last paid the tenant was liable to pay after giving credit to the tenant of all such sums paid or deposited with Rent Controller or in Court or to the landlord for such period. On such determination, the Court is to direct the tenant by order to deposit the said amounts and cost as may be awarded within a period not exceeding sixty days. Sub-section (4) provides that if the tenant deposits the amounts as directed, the Court shall allow the application under sub-section (1), set aside the decree for recovery of possession and dismiss the suit. In sub-section (5), it is provided that if the tenant fails to deposit the amount as may be directed by the Court in pursuance of above provisions, his application under sub-section (1) shall be dismissed.
( 3 ) IN the background of the above provisions, we shall consider the present case. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, would clearly emerge from the dates of events in the course of the proceedings as stated below: 19. 05. 53 - Suit for ejectment instituted on ground of default. 24. 11. 58 - Suit decreed by trial court. 12. 04. 67 - Appeal by tenants dismissed by the lower appellate court. 31.
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.