LexSRI SHIBU CHANDRA DHAR versus SRI PASUPATI NATH AUDDYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
SRI SHIBU CHANDRA DHAR
v.
SRI PASUPATI NATH AUDDYA
MARCH 6, 2002
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. VARIAVA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:
Section 13, Section 17 (2A) and (2B) and 17A to J7D (As inserted by
Amendment Act 30 of 1969)-Interpretation of
Tenancy Laws-Rent-Deposit not made within time-Application not
made for extention of time within the prescribed period-Power and discretion
A
B
c
of Court to extend time-Held, intention of Legislature was to give benefit to
tenant-Court has power to extend time-Held, the word 'shall' used in Section D
I 7 (2B) means 'may '-Held, Act is a beneficial legislation-Should be
construed liberally so tha~ purpose is fulfilled.
Tenants-One of the tenants purchasing building of Landlord-Another
tenant not paying rent to the new Landlord-Instead filing suit for specific
performanc,,_Subsequent to dismissal of suit application for deposit of rent E
filed under Section 17(1)-Applications dismissed by Trial~Court but appeal
allowed by High Court-Appeal preferred by landlord before Supreme Court-
Held, there was no sufficient cause for the tenant for not depositing the rent-.
On facts no interference was called for with the exercise of discretion by High
Court-Leniency shown to tenant should be on heavy costs.
The appellant, a tenant, purchased the building of his landlady. The
respondent, another tenant of the building, did not pay any rent to the
appellant and instead filed a suit for specific performance claiming that there
was an oral agreement to sell between himself and the landlady. Thereafter
F
the appellant filed two suits under Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises G
Tenancy Act, 1956 each for possession of a shop, damage, mesne profits and
injunction against the respondent. Subsequent to dismissal of his suit for
specific performance the respondent filed applications under Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying that he be allowed to deposit all
arrears of rent in accordance with Section 17{1) of the Act. These applications
249
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2002) 2 S.C.R.
A were dismissed by Additional District Judge but appeals preferred by·
respondent were allowed.
The question for consideration in these appeals is whether a Court has
discretion to extend time if a deposit is not made or an application is not made
withiQ the time provided in Section 17. On behalf of the appellant it was
B contended that (i) in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (2B) of
Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 Court cannot
entertain an application for extension of time after the prescribed period of
30 days; (ii) sub-section (2B) of Section 17 uses the word 'shall' which shows
that the provisions thereof are mandatory in nature; (iii) the word 'shall' in
C the said sub-section cannot be interpreted as 'may'.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: I. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is a beneficial
legislation. Such a statute has to be liberally construed so as to ensure that
D the statutory purpose is fulfilled and not frustrated. Prior to its amendment,
Section 17 provided that a tenant could, within the time provided in sub-
section (i) of Section 17, deposit or pay the amount to the landlord and that
if he fails to deposit, the Court shall order the defence against delivery of
possession to be struck off. Thereafter, by the Amendment Act, Sub-section
(2A) and (2B) of Section 17 were added. At the same time Sections 17 A to
E 17D were atlded. Undoubtedly, sub-section (2B) of Section 17, read by itself,
conveys an impression that it is mandatory in nature. However, sub-sections
(2B) of Section 17 cannot be read in isolation. Sub-section (2B) of Section 17
has to be read alongwith sub-section (2A) of Section 17 and Sections 17 A to
17D. Sub-section (2A) of Section 17 gives a Court the power to extend time
F on an application by the tenant The Court can permit the tenant to deposit
or pay in instalments on terms as may be fixed by the Court The wordings
of sub-section (2A) of Section 17 are wide. They show that a tenant could make
an application for extension of time on more than one occasion. The Court
has power to enlarge time on each of such applications. The second or third
application will obviously be filed beyond the time provided in Section 17(1 ).
G As the Court has power to extend time on each such application it is clear
that tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.