Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit for eviction filed by the respondent landlord against the appellant tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The tenant had been depositing monthly rent with the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Act because the landlord refused to accept rent. After the landlord filed an eviction suit, the tenant continued depositing rent with the Rent Controller instead of paying in court as required by Section 17(1). The landlord applied under Section 17(3) to strike out the tenant's defence for failure to deposit in court. The trial court allowed the application, and the Calcutta High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition, following the majority decision in Siddheswar Paul v. Prakash Chandra Dutta. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether deposits made under Section 21 with the Rent Controller constituted payment of rent to the landlord under Section 22(3), thereby precluding the striking out of defence under Section 17(3). The tenant argued that such deposit amounted to payment and no default occurred. The landlord contended that Section 17(1) was mandatory and required payment in court once the suit was filed. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the Act and held that Section 17 is a special provision that comes into operation when a suit for ejectment is instituted. It provides a complete code for payment of rent during the pendency of such suits. The object is to avoid disputes by requiring payment in court. The Court held that even a valid deposit under Section 21 cannot be pleaded by the tenant in response to an application under Section 17(3), because Section 17 supersedes the general provisions of Sections 21 and 22 in such contexts. The majority view in Siddheswar Paul was approved. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders striking out the tenant's defence.
Headnote
A) Rent Control and Eviction - Deposit of Rent - Sections 17(1), 17(3), 21 and 22(3) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Mandatory Payment in Court - Once a suit for eviction is filed and summons served, section 17(1) requires tenant to pay rent in court in prescribed manner, not to Rent Controller under section 21 - Held that section 17 is special provision and complete scheme, and valid deposit under section 21 cannot be pleaded when application under section 17(3) is made - Defence struck out (Pages 2-3).
B) Statutory Interpretation - Special Provision Prevails - Section 17 West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Object of avoiding disputes - Court construed section 17 as controlling landlord-tenant relationship regarding payment of rent during pending eviction suit; deposit under section 21 does not amount to payment under section 22(3) in such suit - Held majority view in Siddheswar Paul correctly represents scope (Pages 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a tenant who deposited rent with Rent Controller under Section 21 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 during pendency of eviction suit could avoid striking out of defence under Section 17(3) on ground that such deposit amounted to payment to landlord under Section 22(3), though he did not pay in court as required by Section 17(1).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court and High Court orders striking out the tenant's defence under Section 17(3). It held that Section 17(1) is a complete scheme and mandatory for tenants in eviction suits; deposit with the Rent Controller under Section 21, even if valid, did not constitute compliance with Section 17(1) and could not be pleaded in response to an application under Section 17(3). The majority view in Siddheswar Paul v. Prakash Chandra Dutta was approved.
Law Points
- Section 17(1) is a self-contained special provision requiring payment of rent in court during eviction suit
- deposit with Rent Controller under Section 21 does not satisfy Section 17(1)
- Section 22(3) does not convert Section 21 deposit into payment to landlord for purposes of Section 17(3)
- special provision overrides general provisions
- valid deposit under Section 21 cannot be pleaded in Section 17(3) application
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 875 of 1964
P.B. Gajendragadkar, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri
1965 AIR 1909, 1965 SCR (3) 34
N.C. Chatterjee, D. Goburdhan, P.K. Chatterjee, D.N. Mukherjee
Kaluram Onkarmal and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order dismissing revision against trial court's order striking out tenant's defence in eviction suit under Section 17(3) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Remedy Sought
Respondent landlord sought eviction and striking out tenant's defence; appellants/tenants sought restoration of defence and reversal of orders.
Filing Reason
Landlord filed eviction suit claiming reasonable requirement for rebuilding, unlawful subletting, and default in payment/deposit of rent for three years; during pendency moved to strike out defence for non-compliance with Section 17(1).
Previous Decisions
Trial court allowed application under s.17(3) striking out defence; Calcutta High Court dismissed revision application following majority decision in Siddheswar Paul v. Prakash Chandra Dutta.
Issues
Whether a tenant who deposits rent with the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 during the pendency of an eviction suit is deemed to have complied with Section 17(1) requiring payment in court, thereby precluding the striking out of defence under Section 17(3).
Whether Section 22(3) of the Act applies to deposits made under Section 21 in the context of a pending eviction suit, making such deposits equivalent to payment to the landlord.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/tenant argued that deposit under Section 21 with the Rent Controller constituted payment of rent to the landlord under Section 22(3), and therefore no default had been committed, making Section 17(3) inapplicable.
Respondent/landlord contended that once the suit was filed and summons served, Section 17(1) made it obligatory for the tenant to pay the amount in court, and failure to do so justified striking out the defence under Section 17(3).
Ratio Decidendi
Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is a special provision that comes into operation when a suit for ejectment is instituted. It requires payment of rent in court in the prescribed manner, and a tenant cannot rely on deposits made with the Rent Controller under Section 21 as compliance. Section 22(3) does not convert such deposits into payments to the landlord for purposes of Section 17(3). Special provisions prevail over general provisions, and the object of Section 17 is to avoid disputes by ensuring payment in court once litigation commences.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 17(1) is a complete scheme by itself and the legislature has intended that in suits or proceedings to which the section applies the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord must be made in the manner prescribed by the section.
Therefore, even the valid deposit made under s. 21 could not be permitted to be pleaded by the tenant when the application was made against him under s. 17(3).
The object is. when a suit or proceeding has commenced between the landlord and the tenant for ejectment and the tenant had received notice of it, the payment of rent should be made in court to avoid any disputes in that behalf.
Procedural History
The premises were originally owned by Harbhajan Singh Wasal and tenanted by appellant No.1. In 1953, Calcutta National Bank Ltd. sued Wasal on mortgage; receiver appointed; on February 18, 1960 receiver sold mortgaged properties to respondent Baidyanath Gorain; sale confirmed by Calcutta High Court on March 1, 1960; respondent informed tenant by letter dated April 2, 1960. On December 11, 1961 respondent filed ejectment suit in First Court of Munsif at Asansol on grounds of reasonable requirement for rebuilding, unlawful subletting, and default in rent deposit. Tenant had been depositing rent with Rent Controller since August 1960 because owner refused acceptance, continuing after suit. Respondent filed application under s.17(3) to strike out defence for failure to deposit in court. Trial court allowed application following Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin. Tenants' revision to Calcutta High Court was dismissed on April 10, 1964, following majority in Siddheswar Paul v. Prakash Chandra Dutta. Appeal by special leave to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act XII of 1956): Sections 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(h), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 13, 14, 15, 17(1), 17(3), 21, 22(3)
