2019 (10) TMI 1587 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction payment - non-payment of arrears of rent in respect of two shops - Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - HELD THAT - There are no error in the order passed by the High Court. One of the grounds of the eviction in terms of the Section 6(1)(b) of the Act is default in payment of rent for three months within the period of twelve months, or for three rental periods within the period of three years where the rent is not payable monthly. It is Section 7 of the Act which provides for an opportunity to the tenant to make the payment of arrears of rent, to avoid an order of eviction on account of its non-payment. Another three Judge Bench judgment in ARJUN KHIAMAL MAKHIJANI AND ORS. VERSUS JAMNADAS C. TULIANI AND ORS. 1989 (10) TMI 241 - SUPREME COURT while examining provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 held that Section 13(a) of the Rajasthan Act was to confer benefits on all tenants against whom suits for eviction on the ground of default of payment of rent were pending. Such judgment was not found to be attracted in view of mandatory provisions contained in Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Act. While examining as to when the provision of a statute is to be treated as directory or mandatory, this Court held in NASIRUDDIN AND ORS. VERSUS SITA RAM AGARWAL 2003 (1) TMI 693 - SUPREME COURT that if an act is required to be performed by a private person within a specified time, the same would ordinarily be mandatory but when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time-frame, the same will be held to be directory unless the consequences thereof are specified. 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. There are no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability and interpretation of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
2. Judicial decorum and the necessity of referring matters to a larger Bench.
3. Application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay in filing an application under Section 7(2) of the Act.
4. Comparison with provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and other similar statutes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997:
The primary issue was whether Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (the "Act") allows for condonation of delay in filing an application for determination of rent arrears. The Supreme Court held that Section 7(2) is mandatory and requires strict compliance. The tenant must deposit the admitted arrears of rent along with an application for determination of the rent payable within the specified time frame. Failure to do so results in the striking out of the tenant’s defense and proceeding with the eviction suit. The Court emphasized that the provision does not allow for condonation of delay beyond the specified period, except for a one-time extension of up to two months as provided in the proviso to Section 7(2).

2. Judicial Decorum and the Necessity of Referring Matters to a Larger Bench:
The appellant argued that the High Court should have referred the matter to a larger Bench due to conflicting decisions by Coordinate Benches. The Supreme Court, however, decided to address the issue directly to bring certainty to the interpretation of Section 7 of the Act. The Court found that the High Court’s decision to resolve the matter on merits without referring it to a larger Bench was appropriate given the specific legal question at hand.

3. Application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to Condonation of Delay:
The appellant contended that the Limitation Act, 1963 should apply to condone delays in filing applications under Section 7(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the Act does not provide for such condonation. The Court distinguished the provisions of the 1956 Act, which included Sub-sections (2A) and (2B) allowing for extensions and installment payments, from the 1997 Act, which lacks such provisions. Therefore, the Limitation Act is not applicable for condoning delays in filing applications under Section 7(2) of the Act.

4. Comparison with Provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and Other Similar Statutes:
The Court compared the provisions of the 1997 Act with those of the 1956 Act and other similar statutes like the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The 1956 Act had provisions allowing courts to extend time for deposit of rent, which were absent in the 1997 Act. The Court cited various judgments to illustrate that where statutes explicitly provide for extensions or condonation, courts have such discretion. However, in the absence of such provisions, as in the 1997 Act, courts cannot extend time or condone delays.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, affirming that the provisions of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. The appeals were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the eviction suit in accordance with the law. The judgment clarified that tenants cannot seek recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing applications under Section 7(2) of the Act.