Court Finds Technical Default in Rent Deposit, Orders Rehearing of Eviction Suit
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has set aside an order by a lower court which had struck out the defense of a tenant, Tarak Nath Banerjee, in an eviction suit for depositing rent with the Rent Controller instead of the court or landlord. The tenant's deposit was deemed a technical default rather than a substantive one, prompting the High Court to direct a recalculation of any outstanding arrears and a fresh hearing of the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
The case involves an ejectment suit filed by Prantosh Kumar Saha against Banerjee. The controversy arose when Banerjee deposited rent with the Rent Controller, which the plaintiff claimed was not in compliance with the amended provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The trial court had initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, striking out Banerjee's defense on the grounds of non-compliance with the statutory requirement to deposit rent with the court or landlord.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court, however, found that while the deposit was made to the wrong forum, it should not be considered a substantive default. The court highlighted that Banerjee had indeed made the payments, albeit to an incorrect authority, which constituted a technical irregularity rather than a failure to pay rent.
The High Court's decision was influenced by precedents such as the Supreme Court's ruling in B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and other relevant judgments which emphasize that benefits under rent control acts can only be enjoyed with strict adherence to statutory provisions, but technical defaults can be remedied.
The court has now directed the trial court to reassess the situation, calculate any outstanding arrears, and allow Banerjee the opportunity to rectify the error by paying any due amounts as per the law. Additionally, the trial court is instructed to reconsider the application under Section 7(3) afresh, treating the rent deposited with the Rent Controller as a mere irregularity and not an illegality.
This ruling underscores the court's balanced approach in differentiating between technical and substantive defaults, thereby providing a fair chance for tenants to rectify procedural errors without facing severe penalties such as eviction.
Bottom Line:
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - Striking off tenant's defense for technical default of irregular deposit is not justified if the rent has been deposited but before an incorrect forum.
Statutory provision(s): West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 Sections 7(1) and 7(3).
Tarak Nath Banerjee v. Prantosh Kumar Saha, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2841216
