HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. SINHA, A. K. MUKHERJI
MANICKCHAND DURGAPROSAD AND BROS. - Appellant
Versus
BALUKIDAS BAHETI - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 373 Of 1959
Decided On : MARCH 17, 1967
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - ADJUSTMENT OF DEPOSITS - VALIDITY OF DEPOSITS - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956, SECTIONS 4, 21.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant, defendant, was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of a room in Calcutta. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a habitual defaulter and had made default in payment of rent for four months within a period of twelve months. The defendant claimed that he had made all payments of rent due and that any defaults were due to the plaintiffs' refusal to accept rent directly from him. The defendant had deposited rent with the Rent Controller for several months, including the months for which the plaintiffs alleged default.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the defendant was not a defaulter and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for eviction. The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that the defendant had committed defaults in payment of rent and was not entitled to protection from eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent for four months within a period of twelve months before the filing of the suit. 2. Whether the defendant's tenancy had been determined by a legal and valid notice to quit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the defendant's deposits with the Rent Controller were not valid deposits because they were not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Section 21(1) requires that a tenant can only deposit rent with the Rent Controller if the landlord has refused to accept rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in Section 4. In this case, the defendant did not tender rent to the plaintiffs for any of the months for which he deposited rent with the Rent Controller. Therefore, the deposits were invalid and could not be used to offset the defendant's defaults in payment of rent. 2. The High Court also held that the defendant's tenancy had been determined by a legal and valid notice to quit. The notice was served on the defendant in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and it gave the defendant a reasonable time to vacate the premises.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and ordered the defendant to vacate the premises.
( 1 ) THIS is a landlord's appeal agaist a judgment and decree dated 30th May, 1959, of the Judge, Third Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta by which the plaintiffs' suit for eviction of the tenant-defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as follows: The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of one room namely room No. 52 on the fourth floor of premises No. 5, Jadunath Mullick Road, Calcutta, at a monthly rental of Rs. 33/ -. The tenancy was according to the Hindi Sambat Calendar month and it ran from Badi 1 to Sudi 15 of each such month. The plaintiffs complained that the defendant was a habitual defaulter and in any event had made default in payment of rent for four months within a period of twelve months since the month of "jeth, S. Y. 2014". The plaintiffs determined the tenancy of the defendant by a notice of ejectment dated 5th May, 1958, addressed by their Solicitor Mr. B. M. Bagaria. By that notice the defendant was asked to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful possession of the room "with the expiry of the next month" i. e. , Ashar Sudi 15, S. Y. 2015. Thereafter when the defendant failed and neglected to deliver up peaceful possession of the room the plaintiffs filed the suit.
( 3 ) THE defendant in his written statement contends that there was in fact no default. He says that he paid rent to the plaintiffs directly upto the month of Chaitra, 2012-13 S. Y. , i. e. , upto Chaitra Sudi 15, 2013 S. Y. Subsequent to that payment there was, he complains, some dispute between himself and the plaintiffs who refused to accept rents direct from the defendant by presentation of bills. The defendant then remitted the rent for the month of Baisakh, 2013 S. Y. by money order and the same was accepted by the plaintiffs. The defendant then remitted rent for the month of Jaistha, 2013 S. Y. on 28th June, 1956 for which, however, he did not receive the postal receipt. Nor did the money come back to him. As the defendant was not sure whether the money had reached the plaintiffs he, in order to protect his interest under law, deposited rent for the months of Jaistha and Ashar, 2013 S. Y. In the office of the Rent Controller, Calcutta, on 1st September, 1958 and continued depositing rents month by month. In the meantime, the defendant came to know after a correspondence with the postal authorities that the remittance made by the defendant on 28th June, 1956, had been delivered to the plaintiffs on 30th June, 1956. Therefore, there was really a case of double payment of rent for the month of Jaistha, 2013 S. Y, After the filing of the suit the defendant deposited the rent for the month of Shravan, 2015 S. Y. In Court within time after service of summons upon him. The defendant claims that by way of adjustment all deposits made by him in the office of the Rent Controller are to be treated as deposits for the months next to the months for which the deposits are purported to have been made. Therefore, though the defendant deposited rents in the office of the Rent Controller upto the month of Ashar, 2015 S. Y. In fact those deposits should be treated as deposits upto the month of Shravan, 2015 S. Y. On these facts the defendant claims that he cannot be treated as a defaulter. 3-A. The following issues were framed for determination:--1. Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? 2. Is the defendant a defaulter in payment of rent from Jeth 2014 S. Y. (May/ June, 1957)? 3. Has the defendant's tenancy been determined by a legal and valid notice to quit? is the said notice legal, sufficient and operative in law?
( 4 ) ARE the plaintiffs entitled to a decree prayed for? 4. At the first hearing of the suit on 30th April, 1959 the defendant filed a petition for adjournment of the suit. The defendant told the learned Judge that he wanted to get the challans which had been sent up by the Rent Controller to be r
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.