Bhagirath Agarwal v. M/S. Simplex Concrete & Piles (i) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

KURIAN, J. C. A. Nos. 7544-7546/2008 I. The appellant is aggrieved since he has been denied interest for the arrears of rent vide order dated 22.05.2006 passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta in the Ejectment Suit No. 717 of I 992. To the extent relevant, the order reads as follows:- ·, "That the petitions filed by the defendant under Section I 7(2) and I 7(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises.Tenancy Act are allowed on contest without any cost. The petition filed-by the defendant for abatement of rent is dismissed on contest. The defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent since November, 1990@Rs.l 9,000/-permonth. Thus the total defaulting period· is 186 months i.e. since November, 1990 to April, 2006. Thus . the total amount ofrent payable by the defendant is Rs.I 9,000/­ x 186 = Rs.35,34,000/-. From the submission of the Id, Lawyer it is available that the defendant already paid Rs.5 lakhs as per order of the Hon'ble Court. So the due amount is Rs.35,34,000/­ - Rs.6,00,000/-= Rs.29,34,000/-. The defendant is directed to · pay the above said arrear rents by ten monthly installments @ RSJ,00,000/- per installment along \\'.ith current rent. The last installment wil1 be Rs.2,34,000/-. Each installment is to be paid A within the last working day of each m'onth. The first installment is to be paid by 301h June, 2006." 2. Since the appellant was denied interest, the matter was pursued before the High Court. However, the High Court declined to interfere with the order passed.by the City Civil CoU1t and hence this appeal. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent/tenant was permitted to pay the arrears of rent in installments. No doubt, there was a defence taken by the respondent that the default in payment of the arrears of rent was on account of the conduct of the appellant/landlord in denying amenities. Yet the City Civil Court has directed the'respondent/tenant to pay the arrears of rent in installments and there was no appeal at the instance of the respondent/tenant. 4. The view_ adopted by the City Civil Court seems to be that there is a discretion vest in the Court and in exercise of that discretion, taking note of the conduct of the landlord, the City Civil Comt thought.it fit to deny interest and permitted payment of only the defaulted arrears. 5. We are afraid, the view cannot be sustained. Section I 7(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 reads as follows:- "Provided that where payment is permitted by installments, such sum shall include all amounts calculated at the rate of rent for the period of default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the order under this sub-section is to be made with interest on any such amount calculated at the rate specified in sub-section ( 1) from the date when such amount was payable upto the date of such order." 6. The statutory provision is very clear. Whenever payment of rent including arrears is permitted to be paid in installments, the.Statute contemplates that the beneficiary shall be granted interest. This is irrespective of the justification or explanation, if any, available for the non-payment. No doubt,_ under Section 34 in case the landlord has refused to provide the \lmenities and in case the landlord spent money for providing the amenities, the said amount, subjecttotl1e conditions therein, can be set off. Though, there is such a case set up by the tenant, yet no set off has been granted ,by the Trial Court, and the tenant was permitted to pay th<ulues in installments. Once the arrears are permitted to bj!'.paid in installments, there is no discretion available with the Court to deny interest. BHAGIRATH AGARWAL v. M/S. SIMPLEX CONCRETE & . 701 PILES (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.J, It is not a discretionary relief; it is the statutory right and entitlement.of A the landlord to get interest. 7. Therefore, this appeal is allowed. It is made clear that the appellant shall be entitled to interest under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. No costs. C.A. Nos. 7552-7554/2008 8. In view of the order passed in C.A. Nos. 7544-7546/2008; these appeals are disposed of. No costs. Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of. ·-' -0