LexJ.L. VARANDANI versus SMT. ASHALATA MUKHERJEE (DEAD) BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
J .L. V ARANDANI
v.
SMT. ASHALATA MUKHERJEE (DEAD) BY LRS.
AUGUST 3, 1990
B
[J.S. VERMA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA
REDDY, JJ.]
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: Sections 17(2), (2A),
(2B), (3) and (4).
Rent Control-Default in payment of rent-Suit for eviction-·
C Benefit of protection against eviction to the tenant under Section 17( 4)-
Deposit of rent in compliance with Court's order under Sections 17(2)
and 17(2A)-Condition precedent-Non striking off defence by the
Court under section 17(3) for failure to deposit rent within the specified
time-Whether leads to presumption that time was extended and delay
f) condoned.
The respondent-bmdlady filed a suit for eviction of the appellant-
tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The appellant
deposited the rent and made an application under section 17(2) of the
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Trial Court'determined
E the rent payable and directed deposit of the arrears of rent. The suit
was subsequently compromised.
Tile appellant again committed a default in payment of rent and
the respondent filed another suit for eviction. The appellant filed peti-
tion under section 17(2) and (2A), disputing the amount of rent and also
F seeking permission to deposit rent by instalments. The Trial Court
decided the rent payable and directed the appellant to deposit the
arrears of rent in monthly instalments by the 15th of each month.
Thereupon the appellant-tenant claimed protection under section 17(4)
which was resisted by the landlady on the ground that (i) the protection
cannot be granted as per the proviso to section 17(4), since he has
G already been granted relief once in the earlier suit, and (ii) Appellant's
non-compliance with the Court's order in depositing the rent disentitled
him from claiming relief under section 17(4).
The Trial Court decreed the respondent's suit and the first appel-
late Court as well as the High Court confirmed the same by dismissing
H the appeals preferred hy the appellant.
610
J.L. VARANDAN! v. SMT. MUKHERJEE [REDDY, J.]
611
._.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the
A
appellant that since the follow-up action of the Court under section
17(3) viz. striking off the defence has not been ordered, it should be
presumed that the delay in depositing the rent was condoned thereby
entitling the appellant to relief under section 17(4).
Dismissing the ap;ieal, this Court,
B
~-
HELD: The mere fact that the Court has not passed an order
striking off the defence as contemplated under Section 17(3) because of
the tenant's failure to deposit within the time specified in the order
passed under Section 17(2) and 17(2A), does not necessarily lead to a
presumption that the time was extended. On the other hand Section c
l 7(2B) which is a mandatory provision lays down that no application
for extension of time for the deposit or payment of any amount under
~
clause (a) of sub-section (2A) shall be entertained unless it is made
before the expiry of the time specified in sub-section (J). [6JSH; 6 !6C]
In the instant case no application for extension of time was made
D
by the appellant. Therefore, in the absence ofsnch application it cannot
be contended that the Court is deemed to have condoned thedelay. [6!6GJ
~
Since deposit of rent as per Court's order under Section 17(2) and
(2A) is the condition precedent for seeking relief under section 17(4) the
appellant who has not fulfilled the same cannot claim the said relief.
E
The orders of the Court below are therefore confirmed. 1616H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 671
~-
of 1985.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24th August, 1984 of the
F
Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 263 of
1979.
N .S. Nesargi and Dr. Meera Agarwal for the Appellant.
Rajan Mahapatra and Rathin Das for the Respondents.
G
-··
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. The matter arises under the
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ('Act' for short). The appel-
!ant is the tenant occupying the premises belonging to the respondent
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R.
A
on a monthly rent of Rs.475. The respondent landlady filed a Suit No.
~
T.S. 84/73 on the ground of default of rent for the period from May to
August, 1973. The appellant deposited the rent and made an applica-
tion under Section 17(2) of the Act. The trial court vide itsExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.