TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether payment of rent to the income-tax authorities in compliance with a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be treated as discharge of the tenant's obligation under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 so as to save the defence from being struck out. (ii) Whether the Court could extend the time for making deposits under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issue (i): Whether payment of rent to the income-tax authorities in compliance with a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be treated as discharge of the tenant's obligation under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 so as to save the defence from being struck out.
Analysis: The tenancy statute imposes a specific statutory scheme requiring deposits or payment of rent in the manner and within the time prescribed by Section 17. The notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act operates in a different field and does not override or supersede the tenancy statute. The two enactments were held not to be in direct conflict, and the special provisions governing defaulting tenants and eviction proceedings prevail over the general recovery mechanism under the income-tax law. The tenant's deposits were also found not to satisfy the requirements of Section 17 in point of time and compliance.
Conclusion: The payment to the income-tax authorities did not amount to valid compliance with Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and the defence was rightly struck out.
Issue (ii): Whether the Court could extend the time for making deposits under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Inherent power to extend time in proceedings under the tenancy statute was recognised only for exceptional cases. On the facts found, the delay in making the requisite deposits was not one that justified condonation, and the circumstances did not warrant interference with the order striking out the defence.
Conclusion: The Court declined to extend time under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Conclusion: The tenant failed to establish compliance with the statutory deposit requirements, and the order striking out the defence was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not displace the mandatory and time-bound deposit requirements of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and inherent powers to enlarge time under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be exercised only in exceptional cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
