Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
BHOLA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
GOSTO BEHARI SARKAR - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 3049 Of 1961
Decided On : MARCH 18, 1965
PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT - DISTRESS WARRANT - SCOPE AND VALIDITY - PAYMENT OF RENT TO OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR - DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF TITLE - JURISDICTION OF SMALL CAUSE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Tenants challenged distress warrants issued by the Presidency Small Cause Court for non-payment of rent. They claimed to have paid rent to the Official Liquidator of a company that had been ordered to be wound up, and that there were other co-landlords besides the applicant. The landlord claimed that he alone was entitled to the rent and that the Official Liquidator had no authority to collect it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the distress procedure under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was not applicable in this case because it involved complex questions of title and disputed facts that could not be properly resolved in a summary proceeding. The court found that the tenants had sent money orders to the correct address as shown on previous rent receipts, but the money orders were redirected to the Official Liquidator by postal authorities at the request of the company in liquidation. The Official Liquidator then demanded that the tenants pay rent to him, and the tenants complied. The court also noted that the landlord had not taken any steps to recover the money from the Official Liquidator, if he believed that the Official Liquidator had wrongly taken the money.
Issues: 1. Whether the distress procedure under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act could be used to resolve disputed questions of title and complex facts. 2. Whether the tenants had made valid payments of rent to the Official Liquidator. 3. Whether there were other co-landlords besides the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The distress procedure under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is a summary remedy intended for the recovery of debts, and it is not appropriate for resolving disputed questions of title or complex facts. 2. The tenants had made valid payments of rent to the Official Liquidator, who was an authorized officer of the court, and they were not responsible for the situation created by the contradictory claims of the Official Liquidator and the landlord. 3. The court did not decide the issue of whether there were other co-landlords, as it was not necessary for the determination of the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Small Cause Court and made the Rule absolute with costs. The court also held that the order would not prejudice the rights of the landlord to take any proceedings against the tenants or the Official Liquidator by way of a suit or other appropriate procedure.
( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against the order of the learned Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta dismissing in one single judgment eight objections by eight set of tenants to the eight distress warrants issued by that Court. It raises the important question of the nature, scope and validity of the distress procedure provided in Chapter VIII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.
( 2 ) THE main objections to these distress warrants can be classified broadly under two heads. The first objection is a plea of payment. The second objection is that the landlord, Gosto Behari Sarcar, was not alone entitled to maintain the application for distress warrant and get an order for such a warrant.
( 3 ) THE facts briefly are as follows: A private company by the name of Sarkar Estate Private Ltd. was ordered by this Court to be wound up on the 4th March 1960. Upto August 1960 rent was paid by these petitioner-tenants to Gosto Behari Sarcar and Brothers (Sarkar Estate Private Ltd.) at 34/a and 34/b Sashi Bhusan De Street. The rent for the month of September 1960 was sent by money-order to Gosta Behari Sarcar and Brothers (Sarkar Estates Private Ltd.) addressed to the correct address as shown in the previous rent receipts, namely, 34/a and 34/b Sashi Bhusan De Street. But then what happened was that this money order was not received by Gosta Behari Sarcar and Brothers but by the Liquidator of the Company, Sarkar Estates Private Ltd. The official Liquidator on the 21/24th November 1960 wrote to the petitioner Bhola Singh that after the order of winding up had been made by this High Court on the 4th March 1960 postal authorities had been requested to cause delivery of all letters, money-orders and other postal articles addressed to the said Company direct to the Official Liquidator at No. 12 old Court House Street. Calcutta. This letter is an annexure to the petition before me. At the penultimate paragraph of this letter the Official Liquidator wrote to the petitioner Bhola Singh addressed at Punjabi Hotel, 124/124/a Bowbazar Street, Calcutta 12 as follows:"the said company in liquidation having a claim, right, title and interest in the above premises and you being a tenant of a portion thereof, you are hereby called upon to produce forthwith before the undersigned the last rent receipt, documents and papers relating to your tenancy and also to pay and deposit all arrears of rents, current and future, in respect of your tenancy with this office"in that state of facts money-orders were sent to the Official Liquidator and rent was realised by the Official Liquidator from the petitioners from September 1960 to April 1961. It is for this period, namely from September 1960 to April 1961, that the opposite party. Gosta Behari Sarcar, filed an application for distress under Section 68 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for these arrears of rents on the 17th May 1961. The petitioner's moveables were attached on the 18th May 1961 under that warrant. As I have pointed out already the petitioners took two objections under Section 60 of the Act, namely, that (1) the distress application at the instance of Gosta Behari Sarcar alone was not maintainable, there being other co-landlords and (2) that there was no arrear of rent as all arrears had been paid to the Official Liquidator for the period in question for which the distress warrants were issued. These objections were filed on the 20th May 1961 but they were rejected by the learned Judge on the 22nd Jury 1961. It is against that rejection that the present Rule was taken out.
( 4 ) IT is stated by the petitioner in the petition and in the affidavits used in these proceedings that Mrs. Gouri Chunder is the owner of premises No. 124 and 124/a Bowbazar Street. The opposite party Gosta Behari Sarcar is a lessee under her holding under a lease. The landlord opposite party here claims that he alone is entitled to these rents and that the official Liquidator had not
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
