KALURAM ONKARMAL AND ANOTHER versus BAIDYANATH GORAIN

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 11-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KALURAM ONKARMAL AND ANOTHER 
v. 
BAIDYANAIB GORAIN 
February I I. 1965 
IP. B. 0AJENDRA.G;JJK:AR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHm AND 
. S. M. SIKIU, JJ.J 
West Be,,gal Premises Tenancv Act. (12 of 1956), ss. 17, 21 and 
22-Suit for eviction-Deposit of rent by tenant with Rent Controller 
and not im Court during pendencv of imit-If defence could be stn.1ck 
off under s. l"/ (3). 
· 
The appellant and respondent were the tenant and owner res-
pectively of premises to which the West Bengal Premises Tenancy 
Act, 1956, applied. The respondent filed a suit, under s. 13 of the Act, 
for the eviction of the appellant on various grounds. The appellant 
deni•'d the allegations and contested the suit. Before the suit was 
filed, the appeilant was depositing the rent for the premises with 
the Rent Controller under s. 21 of the Act, becouse, the respondent 
was not prepared to accept the rent. The appellant continued to 
deposit the rent with !ht Rent Controller even after the suit wa• 
filed and the summons was served. Alleging that as soon as the suit 
was filed and a period of one month from the date of service. of 
the summons <>n the appellant had expired, it was obligatory on the 
appellant under s. 17(1), to pay the amount in court and not with 
tl\e Hent Controller, the respondent filed an application for striking 
out the defenre of the .appellant in the suit. The application was 
allowed by the trial court. The appellant's revision petition to the 
'High Court was dismissed, following the decision of a Special B~nrh 
of the High Court in Siddheswar Paul v. Prakash Chandra Dutta, 
A.LR 1964, Cal. 105. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended that the 
majority view in Siddheswar Paul's case that s. 22(3) does not apply 
to cases falling under s. 17(1) was wrong, because, the deposit made 
by the appellant under s. 21 with the Rent Controller constituted 
payment of rent by him to the landlord, under s. 22(3); and there-
fore, there was no scope for invoking s. 17(3) against the appellant 
inasmuch as the basis of s. 17(3) was that the tenant whose defence 
was sought to be' strurk out had committed a default in the poy-
ment of rent. 
HELD: Section 17(1) is a complete scheme by itself and the legis-
lature1has intended that in suits or proceedings to which the section 
applies the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord must l;e 
made in the manner prescribed by the section. The legislature wanted 
the section to control the relationsh'p between the landlord 
and the tenant as prescribed by it, once a suit or proceeding for 
ejectment was instituted and a period of one month from the date 
of service of the writ or summons on the defendant had expired. 
E\'en in cases where the tenant might have been depositing the rent 
with the Controller tinders. 21, he has to comply with s. 17(1) before 
the period prescribed by the section had elapsed, because, as coon 
us a suit is filed against the tenant by the landlord for eviction. s. 17 
\Vhich i_s a spec~al provision, comes into operation, and it is the pro-
visions of that special section that must prevail in cases governed 
by it. The object ·is, when a su;; or proceeding has commenced l'et-
ween the landlord and the tenant for ejectment and the tenant had 
received notice of it, the payment of rent should be made in court 
to avoid any disputes in that behalf. The majority view in Siddheswar 
Paul's case correctly represents the true scope and effect of s. 17 
as distinguished from ss. 21 and 22. f42E: 431-F; 45G-Hl 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
XALU!Wd v. BAIDYAN.A'IH (Gajendragadkar, 0. J .) 
36 
A 
Therefore, even the valid deposit made under s. 21 could not be 
permitted to oe pleaded by the tenant when the application waii 
made against him under s. 17(3). r43Cl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 875 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
B 
April 10, 1964, of the Calcutta High Co111;t in Civil Rule No. 4439 
of 1962. 
N. C. Chatterjee and D. Goburdhan, for the appellants. 
P. K. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent. 
0 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C.J. Appellant No .. 1, Kaluram Onkarmal, 
was let into possession of the premises described as holding 
No. 182H, G.T. Road, Asansol as a monthly tenant under Harbhajan 
Singh Wasal who was the owner 't>f the said premises. The rent 
agreed to be paid was Rs. 35 per month payable according to the 
D English Calendar. It app

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