Read Time: 06 minutes
Supreme Court has said mere allegation of absence of correct legal advice cannot come to the aid of the respondent as if such a plea was to be accepted it would give complete license to a tenant to occupy premises without payment of rent and then claim that he was not correctly advised
The Supreme Court has said absence of correct legal advise would not come to help of a defaulting tenant, as the Tenancy Acts provided certain protections beyond the contractual rights, so its provisions must be strictly adhered to.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed an appeal by Debasish Paul and another against the Calcutta High Court's order which permitted for filing of an application by the tenant for deposit of rent in an eviction suit, setting aside the trial court's rejection of it due to 10 months delay.
High Court had directed the trial court to dispose of application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension of time.
The matter related to eviction suit filed by the appellant in respect of a shop in Kolkata. It was claimed that the tenant stopped paying agreed rent of Rs 352 per month from February, 2005.
Before the top court, the tenant submitted that there was lack of proper advice from the advocate and subsequently he sought to make amends by filing the written statement.
Referring to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the bench, however, said the proceedings initiated on account of non-payment of rent have to be dealt with in that manner as a tenant cannot occupy the premises and then not pay for it.
"The tenant is, thus, required to deposit all arrears of rent where there is no dispute on the admitted amount of rent and even in case of a dispute.The needful has to be done within the time stipulated and actually should accompany the application filed under Sub-Sections (1) & (2) of Section 7 of the said Act. The proviso only gives liberty to extend the time once by period not exceeding two months," the bench said.
Court also rejected a plea for applicability of the Limitation Act, saying while the Limitation Act may be generally applicable to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, the restricted proviso under Section 7 of the said Act, providing a time period beyond which no extension can be granted, has to be applicable here.
"The respondent neither paid the rent, nor deposited the rent by moving the application nor deposited it within the extended time as stipulated in the proviso. The mere allegation of absence of correct legal advice cannot come tothe aid of the respondent as if such a plea was to be accepted it would give a complete license to a tenant to occupy premises without payment of rent and then claim that he was not correctly advised. If the tenant engages an advocate and abides by his advice, then the legal consequences of not doing what is required to be done, must flow," it added.
Having noticed that there were arrears of Rs 78,144, the apex court set aside the High Court order for not being sustainable and restored the trial court's order.
Case Title: Debasish Paul & Anr vs. Amal Boral
Please Login or Register
