1987 (3) TMI 522 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956.
2. Whether the delayed payment of rent for the months of September 1968 and March 1969 warranted the striking out of the defense.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to the Benefit of Section 17(2A)(b)
The appellant filed an application u/s 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956, seeking to pay arrears of rent in installments. The High Court held that the application was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the time limit specified in Section 17(1). However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred by not considering the overriding effect of Section 17(2A) and Section 5 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance, 1967, which provided retrospective effect to the amendments. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to file the application within one month from the date of promulgation of the Ordinance, and thus, the application was maintainable. Consequently, the appellant had complied with the court's orders regarding the payment of arrears and was entitled to the protection u/s 17(4).

Issue 2: Striking Out of Defense for Delayed Payment
The trial court and the High Court struck out the appellant's defense due to delayed payment of rent for September 1968 and March 1969, citing non-compliance with Section 17(1). The Supreme Court held that Section 17(3) should be read in conjunction with Section 17(4) and its proviso, which allows relief if the subsequent default is for less than four months within a twelve-month period. The appellant's default was for only two months within thirteen months, entitling him to protection under the proviso. Additionally, the Supreme Court interpreted the word "shall" in Section 17(3) as "may," making the provision directory rather than mandatory. This interpretation vested the court with discretion to either strike out the defense or not, based on the circumstances. The Supreme Court concluded that the delayed payments were of a technical nature and did not warrant striking out the defense.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the suit filed by the first respondent, and held that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of Section 17(2A)(b) and protection under Section 17(4). The petitions for impleadment were dismissed as unnecessary. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.