LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications for determination of rent arrears under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
CASE TYPE: Tenancy Law
Case Name: Bijay Kumar Singh & Others vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya & Anr.
Judgment Date: 22 October 2019
Date of the Judgment: 22 October 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1112
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a tenant avoid eviction for non-payment of rent by simply applying for a determination of the payable rent, or are there strict timelines to follow? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. This judgment clarifies the obligations of tenants when disputing rent amounts and the consequences of failing to adhere to the statutory timelines. The bench comprised of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.
Case Background
The case involves an eviction petition filed by the respondent, Amit Kumar Chamariya, against the appellants, Bijay Kumar Singh and others, who were tenants of two shops. Initially, Sudama Singh was the tenant with a monthly rent of Rs. 45 and Rs. 25, which later increased to Rs. 306 and Rs. 174 per month respectively. A Receiver was appointed in a previous Money Execution Case No. 23/1961 and was discharged on 10 February 2009. The respondent demanded arrears of rent. The appellants did not deposit any rent but applied for a determination of arrears, claiming they had paid rent to the Receiver until June 1993. They argued that they could not pay rent further as the Receiver did not inform them of the authorized person to collect it.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1961 | Receiver appointed in Money Execution Case No. 23/1961. |
| June 1993 | Appellants claim to have paid rent to the Receiver up to this month. |
| 10 February 2009 | Receiver was discharged. |
| 10 August 2011 | Trial Court allows the tenant’s application to determine arrears of rent. |
| 13 May 2016 | High Court of Calcutta sets aside the Trial Court’s order. |
| 22 October 2019 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court allowed the appellants’ application, determined the rent arrears, and granted time to pay. However, the High Court of Calcutta set aside this order. The High Court followed a previous order in CO 1941 of 2013, despite a conflicting view in CO 55 of 2014. The High Court decided the matter on merits instead of referring it to a larger bench, stating that CO 55/2014 did not lay down any guiding principle for the Trial Court.
Legal Framework
The core of this case revolves around Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. This section outlines the conditions under which a tenant can be protected from eviction due to non-payment of rent.
Section 7(1) of the Act states that when a landlord files an eviction suit, the tenant must pay all arrears of rent, along with 10% interest, to the landlord or deposit it with the Civil Judge. This payment must be made within one month of receiving the summons or within one month of appearing in court.
Section 7(2) of the Act deals with situations where there is a dispute about the amount of rent. In such cases, the tenant must deposit the amount they admit to be due, along with an application for the determination of the rent payable, within the same one-month timeframe. The Civil Judge will then determine the amount due, and the tenant must pay this within one month of the order. The proviso to Section 7(2) allows the Civil Judge to grant an extension of time, but only once, and not exceeding two months.
Section 7(3) of the Act specifies that if the tenant fails to deposit the rent within the specified time, the court will strike out the tenant’s defense against eviction and proceed with the suit.
Section 7(4) of the Act states that if the tenant complies with the deposit requirements, no eviction order will be passed on the ground of non-payment of rent. However, this relief is not available if the tenant defaults again within a year.
The Supreme Court also considered Section 6(1)(b) of the Act, which states that non-payment of rent for three months within a year is a ground for eviction.
The Supreme Court noted that the 1956 Act had similar provisions but included sub-sections (2A) and (2B), which allowed the court to extend the time for deposit of rent without any restrictions. These sub-sections were not included in the 1997 Act.
Arguments
The appellants argued that Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, is similar to Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which was interpreted in B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick [(1987) 2 SCC 407]. They contended that the Limitation Act, 1963, should apply to applications under Section 7(2), allowing for condonation of delay. The appellants also relied on Shibu Chandra Dhar v. Pasupati Nath Auddya [(2002) 3 SCC 617] and Gaya Prasad Kar v. Subrata Kumar Banerjee [(2005) 8 SCC 14(3)].
The respondents argued that the judgments cited by the appellants dealt with Section 17 of the 1956 Act, which had a sub-section (2A) allowing the court to extend time, a provision absent in the 1997 Act. They cited Arjun Khiamal Makhijani Etc vs Jamnadas C. Tuliani & Ors. Etc [(1989) 4 SCC 612], which distinguished B.P. Khemka due to the absence of a similar provision. They also relied on Nasiruddin and Ors. vs Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577], which held that the power to extend time under the 1956 Act was unrestricted, unlike the 1997 Act. They further argued that the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, are similar to Section 7 of the 1997 Act, and that the Limitation Act does not apply to these provisions.
The respondents contended that the timelines under Section 7 of the 1997 Act are mandatory, citing Monoj Lal Seal v. Octavious Tea & Industries Ltd [(2015) 8 SCC 640], E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy [(2003) 1 SCC 123], and Balwant Singh v. Anand Kumar Sharma [(2003) 3 SCC 433] to argue that statutory provisions must be strictly followed.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Limitation Act |
|
|
| Nature of Statutory Provisions |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- What is the scope of Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 | The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. | The 1997 Act does not have a provision similar to sub-section (2A) of Section 17 of the 1956 Act, which allowed for the extension of time for deposit of rent. The 1997 Act has an outer limit for extension of time to deposit arrears of rent, as per the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 7. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick [(1987) 2 SCC 407] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Interpreted Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which had a provision (2A) allowing for extension of time to deposit rent. |
| Shibu Chandra Dhar v. Pasupati Nath Auddya [(2002) 3 SCC 617] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Followed B.P. Khemka while interpreting the 1956 Act. |
| Gaya Prasad Kar v. Subrata Kumar Banerjee [(2005) 8 SCC 14(3)] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Interpreted the provisions of the 1956 Act. |
| Arjun Khiamal Makhijani Etc vs Jamnadas C. Tuliani & Ors. Etc [(1989) 4 SCC 612] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Distinguished B.P. Khemka due to the absence of a provision similar to Section 17(2A) of the 1956 Act in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. |
| Nasiruddin and Ors. vs Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Held that the power to extend time under Section 17(2A) of the 1956 Act was unrestricted. Also discussed when a statutory provision is mandatory or directory. |
| Union of India v. Philip Tiago De Gama [(1990) 1 SCC 277] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Discussed the principles for determining whether a statutory provision is mandatory or directory. |
| Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas [(1980) 2 SCC 151] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Discussed the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, where there is no restriction to condone delay to deposit the arrears of rent. |
| Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde [(1978) 2 SCC 573] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Interpreted similar provisions in Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel, Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. |
| Union of India and Others v. A. K. Pandey [(2009) 10 SCC 552] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Discussed the mandatory nature of statutory provisions with negative words. |
| Monoj Lal Seal v. Octavious Tea & Industries Ltd [(2015) 8 SCC 640] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Discussed when statutory provisions can be said to be directory or mandatory. |
| E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy [(2003) 1 SCC 123] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Discussed when statutory provisions can be said to be directory or mandatory. |
| Balwant Singh v. Anand Kumar Sharma [(2003) 3 SCC 433] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Discussed when statutory provisions can be said to be directory or mandatory. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, are mandatory and must be strictly followed. The Court noted that the 1997 Act does not contain a provision similar to Section 17(2A) of the 1956 Act, which allowed for the extension of time for deposit of rent without any restrictions.
The Court emphasized that the 1997 Act provides 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.
The Court found that 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.
The Court concluded that the tenant cannot take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it is not an application alone that is required to be filed, but also the deposit of admitted arrears of rent.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act is similar to Section 17(2) of the 1956 Act. | Rejected. The Court held that the 1997 Act does not have a provision similar to Section 17(2A) of the 1956 Act. |
| The Limitation Act, 1963, should apply to applications under Section 7(2). | Rejected. The Court held that the deposit of rent along with the application is a pre-condition, and the Limitation Act does not apply. |
| The timelines under Section 7 are not mandatory. | Rejected. The Court held that the timelines for deposit of rent are mandatory and must be strictly followed. |
Authorities:
✓ B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick [(1987) 2 SCC 407]*: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it was decided under the 1956 Act, which had a provision (2A) allowing for the extension of time to deposit rent. The 1997 Act does not have a similar provision.
✓ Arjun Khiamal Makhijani Etc vs Jamnadas C. Tuliani & Ors. Etc [(1989) 4 SCC 612]*: This case was followed, as it distinguished B.P. Khemka due to the absence of a provision similar to Section 17(2A) of the 1956 Act in the Bombay Act.
✓ Nasiruddin and Ors. vs Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577]*: This case was followed, as it held that the power to extend time under Section 17(2A) of the 1956 Act was unrestricted, unlike the 1997 Act.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the strict interpretation of the statutory provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The absence of a provision similar to Section 17(2A) of the 1956 Act, which allowed for the extension of time for deposit of rent, weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the timelines specified in Section 7 of the 1997 Act and the need for strict adherence to these timelines to avoid eviction. The Court also highlighted the importance of the deposit of rent along with the application for determination of dispute as a pre-condition.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Strict interpretation of statutory provisions | 40% |
| Absence of provision for extension of time | 30% |
| Mandatory nature of timelines | 20% |
| Pre-condition of deposit of rent | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that if a statute specifies a procedure, it must be followed strictly. The Court emphasized that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and does not allow for any relaxation of the timelines.
The Court rejected the argument that the Limitation Act, 1963, should apply, emphasizing that the deposit of rent along with the application for determination of dispute is a pre-condition to avoid eviction. The Court also highlighted that the 1997 Act provides 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.
The Court also considered the consequences of non-deposit of rent under sub-section (3) of Section 7, which provides for striking off the defence against the delivery of the possession and to proceed with the hearing of the suit.
The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations, as it was of the view that the language of the statute was clear and unambiguous.
The decision was reached based on the strict interpretation of the statute and the absence of any provision for relaxation of timelines.
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the interpretation of the law.
The Court’s decision establishes that tenants must strictly adhere to the timelines for depositing rent arrears and applying for determination of rent under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, to avoid eviction.
“Sub section (3) provides for consequences of non-payment of rent i.e. striking off the defence against the delivery of the possession and to proceed with the hearing of the suit.”
“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.”
“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.”
Key Takeaways
- Tenants must deposit all admitted arrears of rent within one month of receiving a summons or appearing in court.
- If there is a dispute about the amount of rent, tenants must deposit the admitted amount and apply for a determination of the rent payable within the same one-month period.
- The timelines for depositing rent are mandatory, and there is limited scope for extension.
- Failure to comply with these timelines will result in the tenant’s defense against eviction being struck out.
- The Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to applications for determination of rent under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
- This judgment emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to statutory timelines in tenancy matters.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the provisions of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, are mandatory, and the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to applications for determination of rent under this section. This judgment clarifies that the absence of a provision similar to Section 17(2A) of the 1956 Act in the 1997 Act means that the timelines for deposit of rent must be strictly followed.
This judgment changes the previous position of law by clarifying that the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to applications for determination of rent under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. This is a departure from the earlier interpretations of the 1956 Act, which allowed for more flexibility in extending the time for deposit of rent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court clarified that the timelines for depositing rent under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, are mandatory and must be strictly followed. The Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to applications under Section 7(2) of the Act. This judgment provides clarity on the obligations of tenants when disputing rent amounts and the consequences of failing to adhere to the statutory timelines.