Summary
The agreement of tenancy between the landlord and tenant of certain premises provided that the monthly rent was to be paid on or before the 7th of each month. For the months of September 1954 to April 1955 the rent was paid beyond the agreed date. In August 1955, a notice determining the tenancy was given but the landlord accepted rent thereafter thus waiving the notice. In February 1956, a second notice determining the tenancy was served and a suit for eviction was filed on March 1, 1956, on the basis that, since the tenant was paying rents beyond the time fixed by contract he was in default according to s. 12(1) (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 by which the proceedings were governed. The tenant contended that : (1) As the rent was in fact deposited by him with the Rent Controller for every month within the prescribed date since February 1956, the suit for recovery of possession of the premises was liable to be dismissed under s. 14(3) of the Act, -and that the proviso to s. 14(3) under which a tenant is not entitled to the protection of s. 14(3) if there was default on three occasions within a period of 18 months, did not apply to him, because, on the acceptance of rent in September 1955 there was a waiver of the previous defaults and a revival of the dead tenancy, and therefore, those defaults should not be counted against him; and (2) s.
24 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which repealed the 1950-Act provided that the acceptance of rent in respect of the period of default operated as a waiver of the default and therefore also,, the earlier defaults should not be counted against him.HELD : (1) In the case of a statutory tenancy a landlord accepting rent does not assent to a new contractual tenancy but continues the old tenancy. In fact, the tenant's attitude in the present case was that the old tenancy was revived and continued. If that were so, the old tenancy, with the defaults, continued and the landlord was entitled to rely on s. 12(1) (1) and the proviso to s. 14(3).Therefore, the benefit under s. 14(3) was not available to the tenant. [20 E-0]Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das, A.I.R. 1961 S.C.1067, Anand Nivas (P) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanjis Pedhi,A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 414 and Calcutta Credit Corpn. Ltd. v.Happy Homes (P) Ltd. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 20, referred to.(2)Section 24 of the 1956 Act puts an embargo on any claim based on default in payment of rent when the landlord accepts rent after default. Therefore, it affects the substantive right of the landlord. Since the section is not made retrospective either expressly or by necessary implication it will only operate from the date on which it came into force (March 31, 1956), and hence, the tenant in the present case could rely on it. [20 G-H; 21 A-B]17See the full content of this document
Extract
Ranjit Chandra Chowdhury VS. Mohitosh Mukherjee
PETITIONER: RANJIT CHANDRA CHOWDHURY Vs.RESPONDENT: MOHITOSH MUKHERJEEDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1969BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)RAMASWAMI, V.MITTER, G.K.CITATION: 1969 AIR 1187 1970 SCR (1) 16 1969 SCC (1) 699ACT: West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act (17 of 1950), ss. 12(1) and 14(3)Scope of.West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (12 of 1956) s. 24-If retrospective.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 299 of 1966.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 14, 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from...
See the full content of this document