LexGOP AL CHANDRA GHOSH versus SMT. RENU BALA MAJUMDAR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) ·-t A GOP AL CHANDRA GHOSH v. SMT. RENU BALA MAJUMDAR AND ANR. JANUARY 12, 1994 B [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: Section 17-Eviction ordered for failure to deposit rent in time-Delay of two days-Defence of tenant that '---r delay occumd due to intervening holiday-Striking off defence-E.ffect of- c Held: Order of eviction does not follow automatically-Landlord to prove that case for eviction has been made out. The Respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant sometime in 1980 on grounds of bona fide requirement, sub-letting of the premises D by the appellant and default in payment of rent from November, 1979. The trial court as well as the first apellate court did not accept the case of the respondent insofar as the first two grounds are concerned. There was no --'-- finding of default in payment of rent, the third ground. However, an eviction order was passed against the appellant for his E failure to deposit the rent for the month of November, 1984 before the 15th of the succeeding month, viz., 15th December 1984, as provided under s. 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as the deposit was on 17th December. Having failed in the Courts below, the appellant preferred the ~ F present appeal, contending that there was delay of two days only and these two days being Saturday and Sunday, the failure to deposit the rent within the time prescribed was technical and not real and hence it should be regarded as inconsequential. Allowing the appeal, this Court G HELD : 1.1. The purpose behind the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is to give protection to a tenant. While construing such a statute, the substance of the matter has to be seen, and not merely the form. )-- Technicalities would have no place when the Court is seized with a human problem, as is the one at hand, relatable as it is to the earning oflivelihood H by the appellant by carrying on business in the shop premises. In such a 108 I ~ G.C. GHOSH v. SMT. MAJUMDAR 109 case, it is the heart of the matter which counts, and not the facade of it. A (116-B-CJ 1.2. 'lbe present case was covered by sub-section (3) of S.17 of the Act which is directory in nature. This would be more so while deciding whether to order for eviction. 'lbe courts below were, therefore, under no obligation to order for eviction merely because of two days delay in deposit B of rent by the appellant. 'Ibis is not all. Sub-section (3) permits striking otT the defence and requires proceeding with the hearing of the suit. So, merely because defence is struck otT, order of eviction will not follow automatically; the landlord shall have to prove dehors the defence of the tenant, that a case for eviction bas been made out. This aspect of the matter was completely missed by the courts below. It cannot be said that C nothing would be required to be proved by a landlord in a case based on allegation of default. The plea of default shall have to be established as any other plea is required by law. "[117-A-C] 1.3. It was a fit case where two days delay in depositing the rent for the month of November, 1984, ought to have been condoned. 'lbe failure not to D do so bas resulted in failure of justice. This apart, the respondents not having established their case of default in payment of rent from November 1979 onwards, on which plea eviction was prayed for when the suit was filed, ,the decree of eviction could not have been legally passed. (117-D-F] E M/s. B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick, [1987) 2 S.C.C. 407 and Shyamcharan Shanna v. Dharamdas, [1980) 2 S.C.C. 151, relied on. Ved Prakesh Wadhwa v. Vishwa Mohan, [1981) 3 S.C.C. 667 and J.L. Varandani v. Asha Late Mukherjee (Dead) by L.rs., [1990) 4 S.C.C. 40, F distinguished. Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v.Agricultural Produce Market Committee, (1976) 1 S.C.R. 451 and Ganesh Prasad v. Lakshmi Narayan, [1985] 3 S.C.C. 53, referred to. CIVIL APPEUA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1325 of 1988. G -\ ' Frpm the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.1987 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 208 of 1987. Dr. S. Ghosh, G.S. Chatterjee, D.P. Mukherjee and A. Banerjee for H 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994ll S.C.R. A the Appellant. B A.K. Ganguli, Ms. Mridula Ray, Dr. S. Bharadwaj and S.S. Ray for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court' was delivered by HANSAR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.