2005 (10) TMI 503 - SC - Indian Laws

Petition filed under Section 17 (2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 filed by the appellant disposed off & declaring that the appellant-tenant was not a defaulter in payment of rent. Held that - Section 39 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions in this Act relating to limitation all the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 shall apply to suits appeals and proceedings under this Act. Since Section 17 (2A) confers power upon the court to extend time for making deposits of all arrears for the period in default the application made by the appellant-tenant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in the initial tendering of the rent becomes meaningful. For the reasons aforesaid we are unable to agree with the views expressed by the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court and we accordingly set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in the revision application and restore the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Howrah holding that the appellant-tenant was not a defaulter in payment of the rents. The appeal is accordingly allowed but there will be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant-tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent.
2. The validity of the initial and subsequent rent deposits by the appellant-tenant.
3. The application of Section 17 (2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
4. The power of the court to extend the time for rent deposits under the Act.
5. The relevance of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant-tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent:
The core issue was whether the appellant-tenant defaulted in paying rent from March 1994, as claimed by the respondent-landlord. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) concluded that the appellant-tenant was not a defaulter, as the tenant had tendered the rent within the prescribed time, but the landlord refused to accept it. The tenant then deposited the rent with the Rent Controller and subsequently with the court.

2. The validity of the initial and subsequent rent deposits by the appellant-tenant:
The High Court found the initial tender of rent for March 1994 invalid because it was made beyond the period prescribed under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, all subsequent deposits were deemed invalid. However, the Supreme Court observed that the delay was due to the landlord's refusal to accept the rent, compelling the tenant to re-tender the rent beyond the prescribed period.

3. The application of Section 17 (2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:
The appellant-tenant filed an application under Section 17 (2) and (2A) of the Act, which allows the court to extend the time for rent deposits. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed this application, indicating that the tenant was not a defaulter. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, emphasizing the benevolent nature of the Act.

4. The power of the court to extend the time for rent deposits under the Act:
The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 17 (2A) of the Act vests the court with ample authority to extend the time for making rent deposits. This power must be judicially exercised, considering the circumstances of both the tenant and the landlord. The court found that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) had correctly exercised this power, given the landlord's initial refusal to accept the rent.

5. The relevance of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The appellant-tenant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in tendering the rent. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed this application, and the Supreme Court found it meaningful, given that Section 17 (2A) permits extending the time for rent deposits. The Supreme Court concluded that the delay in the initial tender was too technical to be considered a wilful default.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, restoring the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah, which held that the appellant-tenant was not a defaulter in payment of rent. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.