1975 (12) TMI 175 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the tenant's defense against eviction under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
2. Effect of payments made to Income-tax authorities under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the tenant's obligations under Section 17(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
3. Inherent power of the court to extend the period for making deposits under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Tenant's Defense Against Eviction under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:
The tenant defendant obtained a Rule under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, which struck out the tenant's defense against delivery of possession under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff on July 16, 1973, alleging non-payment of rent since June 1970. The tenant's application under Section 17(2) of the Act was dismissed, leading to the plaintiff filing an application under Section 17(3), which resulted in the striking out of the tenant's defense. The Chief Judge concluded that the tenant was a defaulter for not depositing statutory interest due to the landlord and for failing to deposit current rents.

2. Effect of Payments Made to Income-tax Authorities under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The tenant argued that payments made to the Income-tax authorities under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be considered as a discharge of his obligations under Section 17(1) or (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. This argument was based on a previous decision by a single Judge, which was later reversed on appeal. The appellate decision clarified that the notice served by the Income-tax Department did not override the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. The tenant had made payments to the Income-tax authorities, but these payments were not in compliance with the requirements of Section 17(1) of the Act, as they were not made within the specified time frame and did not include statutory interest.

3. Inherent Power of the Court to Extend the Period for Making Deposits:
The tenant's counsel argued that the court had inherent power to extend the period for making deposits under Section 17 of the Act, citing a previous decision where such an extension was granted under exceptional circumstances. However, the court found that the tenant's case did not present such exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of time for making the required deposits.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the tenant's payments to the Income-tax authorities did not comply with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The statutory obligation under Section 17(1) was not superseded by Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act. The court also determined that it did not have the inherent power to extend the period for making deposits in this case. Consequently, the Rule was discharged, and the tenant's defense against eviction was struck out. The tenant's request for a stay of the order pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted for a period of three weeks.