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

2016 Supreme(Cal) 1019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.
Arun Prakash Saha - Petitioner
Versus
Asit Baran De and another - Opposite parties
C.O. 2754 of 2016
Decided On : 23-12-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya, Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee
For the Opposite parties : Mr. Amrita Lal Dhar, Mr. Sirsendu Bikas Pal

Failure to deposit admitted arrear rent within the time stipulated by the Court's order under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 leads to striking out of the tenant's defence against delivery of possession under Section 7(3) of the Act.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1997 - SECTION 7(1), 7(2) AND 7(3) - INTERPRETATION - STRIKING OUT OF DEFENCE - ARREAR RENT - EXTENSION OF TIME - COURT'S POWER - STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

Fact of the Case:

In an ejectment suit, the defendant-tenant admitted the rent of the suit property at Rs. 2380/- per month, but disputed the enhanced rent of Rs. 2740/- claimed by the plaintiffs-landlords. The defendant-tenant deposited the monthly rent at the rate of 2380/- but failed to deposit the admitted arrear rent of Rs. 26,180/- along with interest as directed by the Court under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Court rejected the defendant-tenant's application under Section 7(2) of the Act for determination of the rent payable.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the defendant-tenant's defence against delivery of possession stood struck out by operation of law under Section 7(3) of the Act due to his failure to deposit the admitted arrear rent within the time stipulated by the Court's order under Section 7(1). The Court further held that it had no discretion but to pass an order directing striking out of the defence of the defendant-tenant against delivery of possession.

Issues: 1. Whether the defendant-tenant's defence against delivery of possession stood struck out by operation of law under Section 7(3) of the Act due to his failure to deposit the admitted arrear rent within the time stipulated by the Court's order under Section 7(1)? 2. Whether the Court had the discretion to extend the time for payment of the admitted arrear rent under Section 7(1) of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 7(3) of the Act is imperative in nature and provides that if the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 7 within the time specified therein or within such extended time, as may be granted, the Court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. 2. The Court has no power to extend the time for payment of the admitted arrear rent under Section 7(1) of the Act. It is only by virtue of the proviso to Section 7(2) of the Act, the Court has the power to extend the time for payment of the amount adjudicated under the said Section for once only and that too, for a period not exceeding two months.

Final Decision: The Court rejected the defendant-tenant's revisional application challenging the order of the lower court striking out his defence against delivery of possession.

JUDGMENT :

Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.

This revisional application is at the instance of the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 374 of 2013, pending before the Court of the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta challenging the order dated April 07, 2016. By the impugned order dated April 07, 2016 the learned Court below rejected an application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called as "the Code", praying for modification of the earlier order dated February 16, 2016 whereby, he was allowed to deposit the arrear rent from the month of January, 2013 to November, 2013 along with interest at the rate of 10%, per annum.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this revisional application are that the defendant-petitioner was a tenant in respect of the Flat No. 4, situated on the first floor of the eastern side of Premises No. 61, Sovabazar Street, Kolkata-700 005 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"), at a monthly rent of Rs.2380/- under the plaintiffs-opposite parties. From June, 2012 till December, 2012 the defendant-petitioner failed to pay rent of the suit property to the plaintiffs-opposite parties and in terms of an order dated December 17, 2012 passed by the learned Registrar, Small Causes Court at Calcutta, in Distress Case No. 5 of 2012, filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties, the defendant-petitioner paid the arrear rent of Rs.17,842/- to the plaintiffs-opposite parties.

3. However, from January 2013 the defendant-petitioner once again failed to pay rent in respect of the suit property and the plaintiffs-opposite parties filed the ejectment suit before the learned Court below out of which the present revisional application arose. After receipt of the writ of summons of the ejectment suit, the defendant-petitioner filed two applications before the learned Court below, one under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, hereinafter called as "the Act" and the other under Section 7(2) of the Act. In the said application, the defendant-petitioner admitted the rent in respect of the suit property to be Rs.2380/- and the same remained unpaid from the month of January, 2013 but he disputed his liability to pay the enhanced rent of Rs.2740/- per month, as claimed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties. On the basis of the admission of the defendant-petitioner that the monthly rent in respect of the suit property was Rs.2380/- and the said rent remained unpaid from the month of January, 2013 by order dated January 21, 2014 the learned Court below disposed of the application of the defendant-petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Act, allowing him to deposit the arrear rent including maintenance charges for the period commencing from January 2013 to November 2013, amounting to Rs.26,180/-, along with statutory interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum. The learned Court below further directed the defendant-petitioner to pay current rent month by month on the 15th day of each succeeding month, at his own risk without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The hearing of the application under Section 7(2) of the Act was fixed on March 06, 2014.

4. The petitioner started to deposit the monthly rent in respect of the suit property at the rate of 2380/- with the learned Court below. He , however, did not deposit the arrear rent of Rs.26,180/- together with interest accrued thereon at the rate of 10%, per annum on account of admitted arrear rent for the period from January, 2013 to November, 2013 as directed by the said order dated January 21, 2014.

5. On February 16, 2015 when the application under Section 7(2) of the Act filed by the defendant-petitioner was taken up for hearing, the learned Court below found that the defendant-petitioner had not deposited challans of admitted arrear rent for the period from January, 2013 to November, 2013. Thus, by order dated February 16, 2015 the learned Cour












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