Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debasish Kar Gupta and Ishan Chandra Das, JJ.
The Chief Secretary, State of West Bengal and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Dipak Kumar Basu – Respondents
F.A. No.34 of 2008
Decided On : 14-03-2014
For the Petitioner:- Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Sadhan Kumar Halder, Anit Kumar Rakshit, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- Nirmalya Pal, Advocate.
The expression "entire amount of rent due" in eviction suits implies that the obligation of the tenant to pay or tender the rent extends to depositing all the arrears of rent without regard to the period of limitation.
Headnote:
RENT RECOVERY - TENANCY - LIMITATION ACT - U.P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT, AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 20(2), 20(4) - ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RENT DUE INCLUDES TIME-BARRED RENT - POLICE OCCUPATION OF PREMISES - EVIDENCE OF OCCUPATION - ADMISSION OF OCCUPATION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent let out a portion of his property to the appellants, who were police officers, for setting up a police camp. The appellants occupied the premises for several years without paying rent. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrear rent and damages. The appellants contested the suit, claiming that they were not liable to pay rent as the premises were occupied for police purposes. The trial court decreed the suit in part, holding that the appellants were liable to pay rent for the period of their occupation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants were liable to pay rent for the period of their occupation. The court relied on the evidence of the respondent and the documents produced by him to establish the appellants' occupation of the premises. The court also held that the appellants were not entitled to any damages for repairs to the premises, as the damage was caused by a mob attack and not by the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were liable to pay rent for the period of their occupation? 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to any damages for repairs to the premises?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellants were liable to pay rent for the period of their occupation, as they had occupied the premises without paying rent for several years. The court relied on the settled principles of law that when a statute has conferred a benefit on the tenant to avoid a decree for eviction and the tenant has not deposited the entire amount due, which includes the amount time-barred, the protection under the Limitation Act is not available to him. 2. The court held that the appellants were not entitled to any damages for repairs to the premises, as the damage was caused by a mob attack and not by the appellants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decree in part.
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 20, 2007 passed by the learned First Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, in Title Suit No.56 of 2001. By virtue of the impugned judgment and decree, the respondent/plaintiff got a decree of declaration that the appellants/defendants were occupying `A' schedule property as tenant and the respondent was entitled to realisation arrear of rent from the appellants to the tune of Rs.1,24,800/- for the period from December 1, 1994 to March 31, 1999 (52 months) at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per month in respect of one room (800 sq.ft.) as also amounting to Rs.1,91,400/- for the period from April 1, 1999 to August 31, 2001 (29 months) at the rate of Rs.6,600/- per month in respect of three rooms. The appellants were directed to pay the entire decretal amount within three months from the date of order, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to realise the amount together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum till realisation by filing execution case in accordance with law.
2. The facts of this case are stated in a nutshell as under:
The Officer-in-Charge of Basanti Police Station, District- South 24- Parganas, approached the respondent to let out one room of an area of 800 sq. ft. and the rate of rent was agreed at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.ft. payable month by month from February 1, 1994. Subsequently, the above Officer-in-Charge of Basanti Police Station, District- South 24-Parganas further approached the respondent to let out other two rooms of the scheduled property with effect from April 17, 1999 and the total area became 2,200 sq.ft. consisting of three rooms.
3. The appellants since inception as tenant did not pay the aforesaid rents to the respondent. The respondent had issued a communication dated July 19, 2000 to the Officer-in-Charge, Basanti Police Station, District- South 24-Parganas, asking him to pay the aforesaid rents but the appellants did not pay any heed to the same. According to the respondent, the suit property had been badly damaged consequent upon an attack by the mob alleging inaction on the part of the police in a dacoity case of September 28, 2000 and the damage amount had been claimed to be Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for the purpose of repairing the suit property but the appellants did not take any step for such repairing. According to the respondent, the above tenancy of the appellants was terminated by a notice to quit the suit property. A notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also served upon the appellants by the respondent/plaintiff as the appellants failed to pay the rent in spite of service of aforesaid notice. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit which gives rise to this appeal.
4. The appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. According to the appellants, in the year 1993-94, the situation of village Amjhar and the neighbouring area became sensitive and violent. In order to deal with the law and order problems and to combat crime, the local people of the aforesaid area requested the police authority to set up police camp of one room consisting of an area of more or less 800 sq.ft. The respondent allowed to set up a police camp in the suit property free of cost on the basis of oral contract and negotiation in the interest of public. According to the appellants, the police never took possession of the extended portion of the house and the respondent never approached either the Officer-in-Charge of Basanti Police Station, District- South 24- Parganas, or the District Police Authority for any payment of house rent.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Ashok Kr. Banerjee, learned Government Pleader, High Court, Calcutta, appearing on behalf of the appellants, that the suit was filed on December 4, 2001. Therefore, it was barred by law of limitation. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that no notice for eviction was issued by
