LexMONOJ LAL SEAL AND OTHERS versus OCTAVIOUS TEAAND INDUSTRIES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 791 MON OJ LAL SEAL AND OTHERS v. OCTAVIOUS TEAAND INDUSTRIES LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 3786 of 2015) APRIL21,2015 [M.Y. EQBALAND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] A B West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - s. 7(1) (2) c and (3) - Protection against eviction of tenant - Suit for eviction by Landlord - Tenant's applications u/s. 7(1) and 7(2) - Trial court while allowing the application u/s. 7(1) directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent- The tenant instead of depositing the rent to civil court (as required uls. D 7(1) after Amendment Act of 2005) deposited the same to Rent Controller -Application of tenant for permission to deposit the arrears of rent before civil court, when reached before Supreme Court, was rejected with liberty to approach appropriate court to decide whether non-compliance of s. 7(1) E in depositing the rent was bonafide - Thereafter application uls. 7(2) of tenant allowed by trial court and confirmed by High Court - On appeal held: Protection against eviction is available to the tenant only after strict compliance of statutory provisions - In the present case, the tenant failed to comply F with s. 7(1) - However in view of the decision to Supremo Court giving liberty to tenant to satisfy his bonafide, order allowing application uls. 7(2) is correct. Dismissing the appeal, the ~ourt G HELD: 1. The Rent Control Acts have been enacted in different States with the object to protect the tenants from illegal eviction without obtaining the decree or order 791 H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 6 S.C.R. A from a competent Court on one or more grounds provided in those Acts. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through those Rent Control Acts can be enjoyed only after strict compliance with the statutory provisions. [Para 28] [805- B F-G] E. Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors. (2003) 1SCC123; Atma Ram vs. Shakuntala Rani(2005) 7 SCC 211: 2005 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 1071; Sar/a Goel and C Others vs. Kishan Chand(2009) 7 SCC 658: 2009 (10) SCR 481; Ba/want Singh and Others vs. Anand Kumar Sharma and Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 433: 2003 (1) SCR 429; Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 409: 1998 (2) SCR 795; Mangat Rai &Anr. vs. Kidar D Nath & Ors. (1981) 1 SCR 476; Pushpa Devi and Ors. vs. E Milkhi Ram (Dead) By His Lrs. (1990) 2 SCC 134: 1990 (1) SCR 278; Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram /chharam alias Brijram and Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 242: 1974 (2) SCR 544 - referred to. 2. In the instant case, the respondent-tenant deposited the rent as required under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 with the Rent Controller instead of depositing the same with the Civil F Judge. The deposit of such rent by the tenant with the Rent Controller instead of Civil Judge as per the amendments which came into effect on 1.6.2006 was either deliberate or a bonafide mistake. This· may be the reason, this Court in the earlier special leave petition G made an observation that the respondent-tenant may satisfy the Court that such deposit was bonafide. Having regard to the order passed by this Court by giving liberty to the tenant to satisfy that such deposit with the Rent H Controller instead of Civil Judge was bonafide, the MONOJ LAL SEAL v. OCTAVIOUS TEA&JNDUSTRIES 793 LTD. impugned order passed by the High Court is thus fully A justified. [Paras 29 and 30] [806-A-E] Case Law Reference (2003) 1 sec 123 referred to. Para 12 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 1071 referred to. Para 12 2009 (10) SCR 481 referred to. Para 12 2003 (1) SCR 429 referred to. Para 12 1998 (2) SCR 795 referred to. Para 1~ (1981) 1 SCR 476 referred to. Para 14 1990 (1) SCR 278 referred to. Para 14 1974 (2) SCR 544 referred to. Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. · 3786of2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2014 of the High Court at Calcutta in C.O. No. 914 of 2012. P. P. Rao, Bhaskar Gupta, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Soma B c D E Mullick; Sebat Kumar D. for the Appellants. F Dr.A. M. Singhvi, PinakiAddy, Dev Mukherjee, Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 27.3.2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta G in C.O. No. 914 of2012 dismissing the application filed by the H 794 SUPREME COURT RE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.