TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the property by a registered deed of conveyance dated 16.3.1992. After attornment, the appellant became the tenant under the respondent in respect of the suit premises at a rental of Rs.40/- per month according to the English calendar. According to the respondent-landlord, the appellant-tenant was a statutory defaulter as he failed and neglected to pay the monthly rents since the month of March 1994. Since, according to the respondent-landlord, the suit premises was also reasonably required by him for his own use and occupation and for the benefit of his dependents and family members, the respondent-landlord sent a notice to the appellant-tenant under Section 13 (6) of the Act calling upon the appellant-tenant to quit and vacate the tenanted premises upon the expiry of the month of March 1995 or upon expiry of the month of tenancy which would expire after a month from the date of receipt of the notice. Inasmuch as, in-spite of having received the notice, the appellant-tenant failed to vacate the suit premises, the respondent-landlord was compelled to file a suit for eviction against the appellant-tenant, being Title Suit No 181 of 1995, in the Court of Third Munsif at Howrah, inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....month of March 1994 had been tendered by the appellant-tenant first on 2nd April 1994 and thereafter again on 25th April 1994, the initial tender was beyond the period prescribed under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act and since the initial tender was invalid, all the other subsequent deposits could not be held to be valid. On such reasoning, the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and held that the appellant-tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent from the month of March 1994. While holding that the appellant tenant was a defaulter, the learned single Judge also observed that since the rents for the months of March 1994 to June 1995 had already been deposited with the Rent Controller and subsequently in the trial court, the respondent landlord would be at liberty to withdraw the same. It is the said decision of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court which is the subject matter of the civil appeal before us. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Pijush K. Roy, learned advocate, urged that by no stretch of imagination could the appellant-tenant be said to be a defaulter in payment of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Gopal Chandra Ghosh vs. Renu Bala Majumdar (Smt.) And Anr., (1994) 2 SCC 258, took a similar view regarding the powers of the court to extend the time for making deposits of rents. Mr. Roy then referred to a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Shibu Chandra Dhar vs. Pasupati Nath Auddya, (2002) 3 SCC 617, where in similar circumstances, this Court held that the relevant provisions would indicate that the court has power to extend the time but that such power has to be judicially exercised. Mr. Roy urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, the decision of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court could not be sustained and was liable to set aside. Opposing the prayer made on behalf of the appellant-tenant, Mr.Bijan Kumar Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-landlord, reiterated the stand taken before the High Court that since the initial deposit of the monthly rent for the month of March 1994 had been tendered beyond the time prescribed under Section 4 of the Act, the said deposit and all subsequent deposits must be held to be invalid and, therefore, the High Court had rightly held that the appellant-tenant was a defaulter in paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d per cent, per annum from the date when any such amount was payable up to the date of deposit, and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. (2) If in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the tenant shall within the time specified in subsection (1), deposit in court the amount admitted by him to be due from him together with an application to the Court for determination of the rent payable. No such deposit shall be accepted unless it is accompanied by an application for determination of the rent payable. On receipt of such application, the Court shall (a) having regard to the rate at which rent was last paid, and the period for which default may have been made, by the tenant, make, as soon as possible within a period not exceeding one year, a preliminary order, pending final decision of the dispute, specifying the amount, if any, due from the tenant and thereupon the tenant shall, within one month of the date of such preliminary order, deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount so specifie....