SMT. PUSPA SEN GUPTA versus SMT. SUSMA GHOSE

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 20-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. PUSPA SEN GUPTA 
A 
v. 
SMT. SUSMA GROSE 
APRIL 20, 1990 
B 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
c 
D 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: Section 8(3), 34 & 
35-Non-payment of Rent-Eviction-Rent deposited-failure to 
deposit additional electricity charges-Held default committed in pay-
ment of Rent-' Rent' includes amenities charges. 
The respondent-landlord instituted a suit for eviction of the 
appellant-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellant-
tenant deposited the rent but contested the suit contending that failure 
to deposit electricity charges was not a default of payment of rent. The 
Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that failure to deposit electricity 
charges did not amount to default under the West Bengal Premises 
Tenancy ·Act, 1956. But on appeal the Additional District Judge 
reversed the decision and passed a decree for eviction, and the High 
Court confirmed this decision of the Additional District Judge in second 
appeal. 
E 
In appeal to this Court on the question: Whether the appellant 
was a defaulter· in the matter of payment of rent. 
, --'\c 
F 
Dismissing the appeal and confirming the decision of the High 
Court, this Court, . 
HELD: l. Although the expression 'rent' has not been defined, 
there are indications in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 to 
suggest that the word 'rent' includes not only what is strictly under-
stood as rent, but also payment in respect of amenities or services 
provided by the landlord under the terms of tenancy. [566A-B] 
G 
2. The provisions contained in sections 8(3), 34 and 35 of the Act 
give a clear indication that the Act contemplates that a tenancy which 
carries with it certain amenities to be provided or services to be 
maintained by the landlord is within the purview of the Act. If the Act is 
not so interpreted, an astu.te landlord may successfully circumvent the 
provisions of the Act by imposing on the tenant onerous conditions with 
H 
reference to supply of amenities as binding terms of the tenancy. [566C-D] 
564 
• 
-f, 
-+ 
SMT. P.S. GUPTA v. SMT. S. GHOSE (SHARMA, J.] 
565 
Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopa/ Modi and Ors., [1977] 2 S.C.C. 656; 
distingnished. 
Residence Ltd. v. Surendra Mohan Banerjee & Ors., A.I.R. 1951 
Cal. 126, approved in part. 
A 
Karnani Properties Ltd. v. Augustin, [1957] S.C.R. 20, followed. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil AppealNo. 3106 
of 1989. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.3.89 of the.Calcutta High 
Court in Appellate Decree No. 939 of i976. 
R.K. Garg and &opal Singh for the Appellant. 
Dr. "Shanker Ghosh, H.K. Puri and A. Deb for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered b> 
SHARMA, J. This appeal by a tenant of a certain premises in 
Calcutta is directed against the order of his eviction on the ground of 
non-payment of rent. The appellant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.32 
c 
D 
per month as rent and an additional sum of Rs.8 per month for elect-
ricity. According to the defence of the appellant the rent had been 
E 
duly deposited with the Rent Controller in accordance with the West 
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and he was, therefore, not liable 
to be evicted. Deposit was made at the rate of Rs.32 and the remaining 
amount at the rate of Rs.8 was admittedly not deposited. The question 
which has been debated in the courts below is whether the aforesaid 
amount of Rs.8 was a part of rent which ought to have been deposited 
F 
so as to escape the consequences of default. The trial court agreed with 
the tenant and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Additional District 
Judge, Alipore, reversed the decision and passed a decree for eviction 
holding that the tenant was a defaulter within the meaning of the term 
in the Act. The High Court confirmed the decree in second appeal by 
the impugned judgment. 
G 
2. Mr. Garg, the learned counsel appearing in support of the 
appeal has strenuously contended that the rent was only Rs.32-and did 
not include the additional amount of Rs.8 payable in lieu of electricity, 
and consequently the appellant can not be treated a defaulter in the 
matter of p_a1n1ent of rent. Reliance has been placed on the decision of 
H 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
this Court in Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal Modi and Others, I 1977] 2 
sec 656. 
8 
c 
3. Although the expression 'rent' has not been defined,. there 
are indications in the present Act to suggest that the word 'rent' 
includes not only what is st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.