MANMOHAN KAUR versus SURYA KANT BHAGWANDI

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 04-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MANMOHAN KAUR 
v. 
SURYA KANT BHAGWANDI 
OCTOBER 4, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982: 
Section 13-'Defence against ejectment' striking off by court-when 
permissible-Failure to deposit rent within stipulated time-Delay-
Explanation of-Acceptable to court-Court must not strike out 
defence. 
A 
B 
c 
During the peudency of the suit for eviction of the defendant· 
appellant from the shop-room under s. 11 of the Bihar Building (Lease, 
Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 the Trial Court passed an order 
directing the appellant to deposit rent month by month. The appellant 
having defaulted in the payment of rent for two months, the res· 
D 
pondent-landlord filed a petition under s. l3 of the Act for a direction to 
strike out the defence of the appellant. The appellant's defence was that 
it was a case of genuine mistake. The Trial Court heid that the excuse 
for non-payment was not bona fide and that there was unexplained 
delay to deposit the rent. The Trial Court therefore struck off the 
appellant's defence. The High Court dismissed the revision application 
E 
of the appellant in limine. 
Disposing of the appeal, it was, 
HELD: (1) The Act, as the preamble states, is inter alia 'to pre-
vent unreasonable eviction of tenants'. Therefore, though it is for pro-
F 
tection of tenants, the Act is enjoined to regulate the rights and the 
duties of the landlords and the tenants. [413C] 
(2) Tbe Court must from a proper perspective judge the question 
whether the delay or failure to deposit the rent In terms of order under 
section 13 of the Act has been properly explained, and if that delay has 
G 
been properly explained, then the court has a discretion to excuse the 
delay, but If the delay has not been properly explained then the court 
has no discretion. Such a construction would be a harmonious render· 
ing of the language of section 13 to the claim for justice In each particu-
lar case. [414B-C] 
H 
409 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
(3) In construing the question whether the delay has been reason-
ably explained or not, the court in the scheme of the administration of 
justice must take a constructive and purpose-oriented approach. If it 
does, then the element of discretion comes into play though not in the 
form of directory or mandatory provision but in considering whether 
the delay was properly explained or not. [414C.-D] -
B 
c 
D 
(4) In the facts of this case, there is good deal of justification for 
the delay and the delay has been properly explained. The Trial Court, 
therefore, committed an error resulting in miscarriage of justice. The 
High Court in not interfering with this miscarriage too committed an 
error of jurisdiction. [414D;E:r 
Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, [1985] 3 
S.C.R. 825; Mrs. Manju Choudhary v. Dulai Kumar Chandra, [1988] 1 
SCC 363 and M/s. B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar 
Bhowmick, [1987] 2 SCC 407, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3740 
of 1988. 
' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7. 7 .1988 of the Patna High 
Court in C.R. No:i.67 of i988. 
E 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh and D.P. Mukherjee for the Appellant. 
H.K. Puri for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted. The 
appeal is disposed of by the judgment herein. 
This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court 
of Patna (Ranchi Bench} dated 7th of July, 1988. By the aforesaid 
order the High Court confirmed the striking off of the defence of the 
G appellant in a suit for eviction under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent 
and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the 
ground of personal necessity and change of the nature of the business 
by the appellant etc. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction 
against the defendant-appellant from the shop-room under Section 11 
of the said Act on the aforesaid grounds. The appellant filed the writ-
.H ten statement contestin_g the said suit. The case of the appellant was 
-<.,. 
·-
MANMOHAN KAUR v. S.K. BHAGWANDI [MUKHARJI, J.l 
411 
that the respondent-landlord's case was false and a pretext for re-
letting the premises for much higher rent after her attempt to increase 
rent did not succeed. It was further alleged that the landlord had suffi-
cient alternative accommodation which would not entitle him to get a 
decree. 

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