GAYA PRASAD KAR versus SUBRATA KUMAR BANERJEE

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 03-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GA YA PRASAD KAR 
A 
v. 
SUBRA TA KUMAR BANERJEE 
OCTOBER 3, 2005 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Tenancy-West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956-Sections 17(2), 
17(2A), 4, 13 & 39-Default in payment of rent-Not made out injacts and 
circumstances of the case-Default, if any, too technical-Only on account 
of initial refusal of the landlord, the tenant was compelled to tender rent for C 
the second time, which was according to the time prescribed under S.4 of the 
Act-Since S. 17 (2A) of the Act empowers the Court to extend time for deposit 
of rent arrears, application filed by tenant under S.5 of the Limitation Act 
for condonation of delay in initial tendering of rent was appropriate-
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 5. 
D 
The appellant-tenant allegedly failed to pay monthly rent for the suit 
premises since the month of March, 1994. Since, the respondent-landlord also 
purportedly required the suit premises for his own use and occupation, he 
sent notice to the appellant-tenant under S.13(6) of the West Bengal Premises 
Tenancy Act, 1956. However, the appellant-tenant failed to vacate the suit E 
premises, on which the respondent filed eviction suit. Appellant was served 
with summons of the suit in May, 1995, whereafter with leave of the Court he 
began depositing monthly rent in Court w.e.f July, 1995. 
The appellant-tenant had tendered rent for the month of March, 1994 
on 2nd April, 1994 and again on 25th April, 1994, but on both the occasions F 
the money orders were refused by the respondent-landlord. The appellant-
tenant thereafter deposited the rents for the months of March, April and May, 
1994 with the Rent Controller ar.d continued to deposit the rents regularly 
with the said Rent Controller upto June, 1995. 
After receiving summons of the suit, the appellant-tenant filed an 
application under Section 17(2) and (2A) of the Act invoking power of the 
Court to extend time for deposit of rent arrears for the period in default 
together with an application for condonation of delay in tendering rent under 
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Trial Court allowed the application under S.5 
G 
~I 
H 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A of the Limitation Act and disposed of the application under Section 17(2) and 
(2A) holding that the appellant-tenant was not a defaulter in payment of rent. 
But the High Court, in revision, held that as the rent for the month of March, 
1994 had been tendered by the Appellant in April, the initial tender was beyond 
the period prescribed under Section 4 of the Act and since the initial tender 
was invalid, all the other subsequent deposits could not be held to be valid. 
B Accordingly, it set aside the order of Trial Court and held that the appellant-
tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent from the month of March, 1994. 
Hence the present appeal 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The order passed by the High Court in the revision application 
is set aside and the order of the Trial Court holding that the appellant-tenant 
was not a defaulter in payment of rents is restored. [900-CI 
2.1. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, is a benevolent piece 
D of legislation. While it is no doubt true that Section 4 of the Act provides that 
rents are to be paid within the time fixed by the contract, or, in the absence of 
a contract, by the 15th day of the month next following the month for which it 
is payable, once a suit is filed on any of the grounds referred to in Section 
13, the tenant would be entitled to the benefits of extension of time under Sub-
section (l) and Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act with reference to the 
E amounts to be deposited within sub-sections (l) and (2) thereof. [897-Fl 
2.2. From Section 17 of the Act it would be evident that, it was the 
intention of the Legislature that on a suit for eviction being filed under the 
provisions of this Act, the tenant was required to deposit rent either in Court 
or with the Rent Controller or pay to the landlord an amount equivalent to the 
F rate of rent at which it was last paid, for the period for which the tenant may 
have made default, including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of 
the month previous to that in whkh the deposit of rent is made together with 
interest at the rate indicated therein. In the instant case, there is no willful 
default in tendering of the rents by the tenant to the landlord and it was only 
G on account of the initial re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.