West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997:
s.7 – Scope and ambit of – Held: Section 7 provides a complete mechanism for avoiding eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent – Provisions of sub-section (2) of s.7 are mandatory – There is an outer limit for extention of time to deposit arrears of rent in terms of Proviso to sub-section (2) of s.7 – Deposit of admitted arrears of rent along with an application for determination of dispute is a pre-condition to avoid eviction on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent-tenant cannot take recourse to s.5 of Limitation Act – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The provisions of sub section (2) of Section 7 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are mandatory and required to be scrupulously followed by the tenant, if the tenant has to avoid the eviction on account of non-payment of arrears of rent under Section 6 of the Act. There is an outer limit for extension of time to deposit of arrears of rent in terms of the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. The consequences flowing from non-deposit of rent are contemplated under sub section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, if the tenant fails to deposit admitted arrears of rent within one month of receipt of summons or within one month of appearance without summons and also fails to make an application for determination of the disputed amount of rate of rent and the period of arrears and the subsequent non-payment on determining of the arrears of rent, will entail the eviction of the tenant. Section 7 of the Act provides for a complete mechanism for avoiding eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, provided that the tenant takes steps as contemplated under sub section (2) of Section 7 of the Act and deposits the arrears of rent on determination of the disputed amount. The deposit of rent along with an application for determination of dispute is a pre-condition to avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. In view thereof, tenant will not be able to take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act as it is not an application alone which is required to be filed by the tenant but the tenant has to deposit admitted arrears of rent as well. [Para 21][1042-E-H; 1043-A]
Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC
577 : [2003] 1 SCR 634 – relied on.
B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick (1987) 2 SCC 407 : [1987] 2 SCR 559 – distinguished. Shibu Chandra Dhar v. Pasupati Nath Auddya and Gaya Prasad Kar v. Subrata Kumar Banerjee (2002) 3 SCC
617 : [2002] 2 SCR 249; Arjun Khiamal Makhijani Etc v. Jamnadas C. Tuliani & Ors. Etc. (1989) 4 SCC
612 : [1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 380; Monoj Lal Seal v. Octavious Tea & Industries Ltd (2015) 8 SCC 640 : [2015] 6 SCR 791; E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (2003)
1 SCC 123; Balwant Singh v. Anand Kumar Sharma (2003) 3 SCC 433 : [2003] 1 SCR 653; Vatan Mal v. Kailash Nath (1989) 3 SCC 79 : [1989] 2 SCR 192; Union of India v. Philip Tiago De Gama (1990) 1 SCC
277 : [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 336; Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas (1980) 2 SCC 151 : [1980] 2 SCR 334; Union of India and Others v. A. K. Pandey (2009) 10 SCC 552 : [ 2009] 14 SCR 528 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
As listed in the Supreme Court Reports. Linked where the judgment is on LegalFirms.in.
From the case lists those reports print.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.