BIJAY KUMAR SINGH & OTHERS versus AMIT KUMAR CHAMARIYA & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1028 · Decided: 22-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1028
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
BIJAY KUMAR SINGH & OTHERS
v.
AMIT KUMAR CHAMARIYA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7849 of 2019)
OCTOBER 22, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA]
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997:
s.7 – Scope and ambit of – Held: Section 7 provides a complete
mechanism for avoiding eviction on the ground of non-payment of
arrears of rent – Provisions of sub-section (2) of s.7 are mandatory
– There is an outer limit for extention of time to deposit arrears of
rent in terms of Proviso to sub-section (2) of s.7 – Deposit of admitted
arrears of rent along with an application for determination of
dispute is a pre-condition to avoid eviction on the ground of non-
payment of arrears of rent-tenant cannot take recourse to s.5 of
Limitation Act – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The provisions of sub section (2) of Section 7 of
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are mandatory and
required to be scrupulously followed by the tenant, if the tenant
has to avoid the eviction on account of non-payment of arrears of
rent under Section 6 of the Act. There is an outer limit for
extension of time to deposit of arrears of rent in terms of the
proviso to sub section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. The
consequences flowing from non-deposit of rent are contemplated
under sub section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, if the
tenant fails to deposit admitted arrears of rent within one month
of receipt of summons or within one month of appearance without
summons and also fails to make an application for determination
of the disputed amount of rate of rent and the period of arrears
and the subsequent non-payment on determining of the arrears
of rent, will entail the eviction of the tenant. Section 7 of the Act
provides for a complete mechanism for avoiding eviction on the
ground of arrears of rent, provided that the tenant takes steps as
contemplated under sub section (2) of Section 7 of the Act and
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1028
1028
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
deposits the arrears of rent on determination of the disputed
amount. The deposit of rent along with an application for
determination of dispute is a pre-condition to avoid eviction on
the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. In view thereof,
tenant will not be able to take recourse to Section 5 of the
Limitation Act as it is not an application alone which is required
to be filed by the tenant but the tenant has to deposit admitted
arrears of rent as well. [Para 21][1042-E-H; 1043-A]
Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC
577 : [2003] 1 SCR 634 – relied on.
B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick
(1987) 2 SCC 407 : [1987] 2 SCR 559 –  distinguished.
Shibu Chandra Dhar v. Pasupati Nath Auddya  and Gaya
Prasad Kar v. Subrata Kumar Banerjee (2002) 3 SCC
617 : [2002] 2 SCR 249; Arjun Khiamal Makhijani
Etc v. Jamnadas C. Tuliani & Ors. Etc. (1989) 4 SCC
612 : [1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 380; Monoj Lal Seal v.
Octavious Tea & Industries Ltd (2015) 8 SCC 640 :
[2015] 6  SCR 791; E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (2003)
1 SCC 123; Balwant Singh v. Anand Kumar Sharma
(2003) 3 SCC 433 : [2003] 1 SCR  653; Vatan Mal v.
Kailash Nath (1989) 3 SCC 79 : [1989] 2 SCR 192;
Union of India v. Philip Tiago De Gama (1990) 1 SCC
277 : [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 336; Shyamcharan Sharma
v. Dharamdas (1980) 2 SCC 151 : [1980] 2 SCR 334;
Union of India and Others v. A. K. Pandey (2009) 10
SCC 552 : [ 2009] 14 SCR 528 – referred to
Case Law Reference
[1987] 2 SCR 559
distinguished
Para 6
[2002] 2 SCR 249
referred to
Para 6
[1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 380
referred to
Para 7
[2003] 1 SCR 634
relied on
Para 8
[2015] 6 SCR 791
referred to
Para 9
(2003) 1 SCC 123
referred to
Para 9
BIJAY KUMAR SINGH & OTHERS v. AMIT KUMAR
CHAMARIYA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1030
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
[2003] 1 SCR 653
referred to
Para 9
[1989] 2 SCR 192
referred to
Para 14
[1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 336
referred to
Para 15
[1980] 2 SCR 334
referred to
Para 15
[2009] 14 SCR 528
referred to
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7849
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2016 of the  High
Court at Calcutta in C.O. No. 1942 of 2013.
With
Civil Appeal No. 7850 of 2019.
Anip Sachthey, Sr. Adv., Anando Mukherjee, Ms. Anjali Chauhan,
Ms. Ria Sachthey, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Pranab Kumar Mullick, Ms. Soma Mullick, Seba Kumar Deuria,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.