RANJIT CHANDRA CHOWDHURY versus MOHITOSH MUKHERJEE

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 17-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RANITT CHANDRA CHOWDHURY 
v. 
MOHITOSH MUKHERJEE 
March 17, 1969 
(M. HiDAYATULLAH, C.J., V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act ( 17 
o/ 1950), rs. 12(1) and 14(3)-Scopt of. 
Wm Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (12 of 1956) s. 24-If retrospective. 
The agreement of tenaocy between the landlord aod tenant of certain 
premises provided that the monthly rent was to be paid oo or before the 
7th of each mooth. For the mooths of Sep1ember 1954 to April 1955 the 
rent wu paid beyood the agreed date. 
In August 1955, a ooticc deter-
mutioa the tenancy was given. but the landlord accepted rent thereafter thus 
waivin11 the notice. 
In February 1956, a su:ond notice determini"B 
the 
tenancy was served aod a suit for eviction was filed on March I, 1956, on 
the basis that. since the tenant was paying rents beyond the time fixed by 
cootract he was in default according to s. 12(1)(i) of the West Bengal 
Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 by which the 
proceedinas were governed. 
The tenant contended that : ( l) 
As the 
rm: waa in fact deposited by him with the 
Rent Controller for every 
month within the prescribed date since February 1956, the suit for recovery 
of posseasion of tho premises was liable to ho dismissed under s. 14(3) of 
the A~t, and that the proviso to s. 14(3) under which a tenaot is not 
. eotitled to the protectioo of s. 14(3) if there was default on throe occasions 
within a period of 18 months, did not apply to him, because, on the accep-
tance of rent in Septemh<r l 955 there was a waiver of the previous defaults 
and a revival o/ the dead tenancy, and therefore, those defaults should not 
be counted against him; and (2) s. 24 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy 
Act, 1956, which repealed the 1950-Act provided that the acceptance of 
rent in respect of the period of default operated as a waiver of the default 
and therefore also, the earlier defaults should not ho counted against him. 
HELD : ( 1) In the case of a statutory tenancy a landlord accepti"B 
rent does not 11SSCnt to a new contractual tenancy but cootinu"" the old 
tenancy. In fact, the tenant's attitude in the present case was that the old 
tCllancy was revived and continued. If that were so, the old tenancy, with 
the defaults, continued and tho landlord was entitled to rely on s. 12(1)(i) 
and the proviso to s. 14(3). Th=fore, the benefit under s. 14(3) was 
not available 10 the tenant. [20 E-0) 
Ganga Duft Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das. A.l.R. 1961 S.C. 1067, 
Anand Nivas (P) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanjfs Ptdhi, A.I.R. 1%5 S.C. 414 
and Calcutta Credit Corpn. Lrd. v. Happy HomtJ (P) Ltd. [1968) 2 S.C.R. 
20, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(2) Section 24 of the 1956 Act puts ao embargo on any claim based on 
default in payment of rent when the landlord accepts rent after default. 
H 
Therefore, ti alfecta the substantive right of the landlord. Since tho section 
;,, not made retrospective either expressly or by necessary implication it will 
only operate from the date on which it came into fora: (March 31, 1956). 
and hence, the tenant in the present case C<JU!d rely on it. [20 0-H; 21 A-BJ 
• 
,...
I 
RANJIT v. MOlllTOSH (Hidayatullah, C.I.) 
17 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 299 of 
B 
c;: 
D 
E 
F 
H 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
August 14, 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from 
Appellate Decree No. 1374 of 1960. 
B. K. Bhattacharjee, S. C. Majumdar and S. P. Mitra, for the. 
appellant. 
J. P. Mitter and Sukumar Ghose, for the responden't. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullab, C.J. In this appeal, by special leave, the appel-
lant is the tenant of a house No. 120B, Manoharpukur Road, 
District 24 Parganas, Calcutta~29 and the respondent is the land-
lord. Both the tenant and the landlord died after the institution 
of the suit and are represented by their legal representatives. The 
suit was for ejectment of the tenant for default in payment of 
rent as agreed to between the parties. 
The suit was dismissed by the Munsif, 1st Court, Alipur, but 
on appeal the judgment was reversed by the Subordinate Judge, 
8th Court, Alipur whose decree was confirmed on appeal by the 
learned Single Judge in the High Court at Calcutta. This appeal 
is against the judgment dated August 14, 1965 of the Calcutta 
High Court. 
The premises were rented out to the original tenant as far 
back as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.