MANIK LAL MAJUMDAR AND ORS. versus GOURANGA CHANDRA DEY AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 26-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MANIK LAL MAJUMDAR AND ORS. 
v. 
GOURANGA CHANDRA DEY AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 26, 2004 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 197 5; Ss. 12, 13 & 20 
C and Rules thereunder: 
Sui/for eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement and default in 
payment of rent-Rent Control Court found tenants defaulters and directed 
them to handover possession of the premises to Landlord-Appeal dismissed 
by Civil Court holding that appeal filed without depositing arrears of rent, not 
D maintainable-Revision petition allowed by District Court-Case remanded 
to Appellate Court-Challenge to-High Court held that appeal is not 
maintainable under Section 20 of the Act unless mandatory requirements of 
depositing of rent, before filing of appeal, is complied with-On appeal, matter 
referred to larger Bench. 
E 
Held :-Per Sltivaraj V. Patil, J: Depositing of arrears of rent is a 
condition mandatory for preferring an appeal under Section 20 of the Act-
Mandatory conditions could not be relaxed-Court could stop further 
proceeding in case tenant fails to deposit subsequent arrears of rent-Condition 
could rlot be diluted on the ground of hardship to tenant, more so, when he 
F was already given an opportunity before the Rent Control Court-Appellate 
Authority-Jurisdiction of-Does not possess all powers of Rent Control 
Court-Appellate Authority could neither relax condition nor it could pass an 
effective order staying further proceeding-Legislative intention-If plain 
grammatical interpretation of the provisions in a Statute gives rise to absurdity/ 
inconsistency, Court could disregard such interpretation and adopt the 
G interpretation which would give ·effect to the purpose of legislature-Since 
provisions as to mandatory requirement of deposit of arrears of rent before 
preferring an appeal are clear and unambiguous, no further interpretation 
required to determine intention of the legislature-Interpretation of Statutes. 
H 
Heid:-Per Dliarmadltikari, J: Appellate Authority has been conferred 
742 
-
MANIK LAL MAJUMDAR v. G. C. DEY 
743 
with all powers of Rent Control Court-Admitted arrears of rent/recurring A 
rent accrued/accumulated during eviction proceedings before preferring an 
appeal are required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of law 
on fixation of time/manner of deposit-Period of limitation for preferring an 
appeal not to be construed as period of deposit of arrears of rent as pre-
condition for preferring an appeal-Legislature-Presumption-Assuming that B 
provisions under sub Section (4) a/Section 20 does not confer on the Appellate 
Authority full power of Rent Control Court-Provisions under sub-section (4) 
of Section 20 would be rendered otiose making the legislature redundant-
Such construction must be avoided-Hence, a tenant may file an appeal within 
the prescribed period, provided he seeks an order from the Appellate Authority 
in accordance with Section 13(2) and make deposit of arrears of rent/future C 
rent as determined by the Authority-Interpretation of Statutes. 
Words and Phrases: 
'no', 'unless', 'prefer', 'all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be 
due '-Meaning of in the context of Tripura Rent Control Legislation. 
D 
The question that arose for consideration in this appeal was as to 
whether an appeal could be preferred under Section 20 of the Tripura 
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, without making payment or 
depositing of all arrears of rent as admitted by the tenant as per provisions 
under Section 13(1) of the Act. 
E 
It was contended for the appellant-tenant that the High Court was not 
correct in its findings that an appeal could not be preferred without depositing 
arrears of rent; that an opportunity should have been given by the Appellate 
Court for making payment of admitted rent due before an appeal is heard; 
and that as per provisions of law under Section 13 of the Act, an appeal F 
preferred even without depositing of arrears of rent due could not be 
dismissed. 
On behalf of the Respondent-landlord, it was submitted that Section 
13(1) of the Act in clear and unambiguous terms states that no appeal could 
be preferred against any order of the Rent Control Court without depositing G 
of arrears of rent admitted. 
Referring the appeal to a larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: Per, Shivaraj V. Patil, J: 
H 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1.1. From the plain l

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