LexBALWANT SINGH AND ORS. versus ANAND KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BALWANT SINGH AND ORS. A -/ ~ v. ANAND KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. JANUARY 28, 2003 B [V.N. KHARE, CJI., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: c Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act; Section J J: Eviction Petition filed on ground of default in payment of rent-Dismissed by Trial Court-First Appellate Court decreed the suit for default-Appeals dismissed by Second Appellate Court and High Court-On appeal, Held: when statute prescribes period of payment of rent, such provision is considered D mandatory and needs to be complied with-Hence dismissal of suit justified- Since the Statute does not empoiver Court to extend time, the Court does not possess power to extend time for payment of rent beyond the prescribed time --..( period-Interpretation of statutes. Respondent-landlord tiled a suit for eviction of appellant-tenants on E the ground of default in payment of rent and bonafide requirements. Trial Court dismissed the suit. Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for default. On dismissal of their appeal by the Second appellate Court as well as the High Court, tenants filed the present appeal. The matter was referred to the present three-Judge Bench to F examine the correctness of the view taken by the Full Bench of Patna High Court in Raj Kumar Prasad v. Uchit Narain Singh, AIR (1980) Patna (FB) 242 on the basis of earlier decision of two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on the issue of default in payment of rent and the same was followed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. G ~ It was contended for the tenants that since the view taken by the High Court was in conflict with the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, the judgment needs to be set aside. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 653 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) I S.C.R. A HELD: 1. The statute mandates that the rent should be paid within the time fixed by the contract and in absence thereofby the last date of the month next following. The obligation on the part ofthe tenant to pay rent in the manner laid down under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, being a statutory one, he must comply therewith B strictly. The statute prescribes the period within which the rent must be . rendered to the landlord by a tenant. When the statute lays down the period during which the rent is required to be paid or deposited, the same is required to be complied with. lt is well settled principle that if a thing is required to be done by a private person within a specified time, the same would ordinarily be mandatory but when a public functionary is required C to perform a public function within a time-frame, the same will be held to be directory unless the consequences therefor are specified. High Court has rightly held that by reason of the two decisions of the Supreme Court*, the Full Bench decision of the High Court cannot be said to have been over-ruled. [656-C-D-G; 658-A) D *Gowali Charan v. Surendra Kumar Khandani and Ors., 11987) Suppl. · SCC 578 and Satyanarain Kandu v. Smt. Hemlata and Ors., (1996) PLR 110 SC, overruled. E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (dead) by Lrs. and Ors., 12003] 1 SCC 123 and Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises Pvt. Ltd v. Syeda Vajuninissa E Begum (Smt.) and Ors., [19941 2 sec 671, referred to. Sutherland, Statutory construction, 3rd Edition, Vol. 3 at P. 107, 109 & 1 I 0, referred to. 2. Where a statute empowers the Court to extend time or further F time when a tenant fails to deposit rent within the stipulated time, only in such cases, the Court possesses power to extend time and in no other cases. [658-B) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 910 of· G 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.1.2000 of the High Court of Patna in appeal from Appellate Decree no. 3/85. ~ ' . S.B. Upadhyay. Amitesh Kumar and ~akshmi Raman Singh for the H appearing parties. ... ·' --J ' ---- BAL WANT SINGH"· A.K. SHARMA (V.N. KHARE, CJ.] 655 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A KHARE, CJ. The appellants herein are the tenants. The landlord brought a suit for eviction of the t~.nant, inter alia on the ground of personal necessity as well as for default in payment of rent. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, the first appellate court allowed the appeal of landlord and thus the ' suit on the ground of default was decreed. The second appeal, by the tenants, B was dis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.