Case: Manjusree Chakraborty &amp; Other Vs. M/s. M. Ahmed Bhuyan &amp; Co. &amp; Another

Dr. Lalit Kumar Chakraborty filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dibrugarh, in the year 2000, seeking the eviction of the defendants therefrom. The trial court dismissed the above suit on 23.02.2005. The judgment rendered by the trial court, was assailed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, by way of an appeal. The said appeal was allowed on 22.08.2008. The defendants in the suit assailed the judgment dated 22.08.2008, before the Gauhati High Court by preferring C.R.P. No.417/2008. The High Court accepted the above petition, on 19.05.2015. A challenge is now raised against the above order dated 19.05.2015, passed by the High Court, through the instant special leave petition.6. Needless to mention, that the undisputed factual position is, that thedid not tender any rent from August, 1999. Themade a demand for rent in August, 2000, first orally and thereafter through a legal demand notice, dated 12.8.2000. The factual position is, that the demand notice dated 12.8.2000, was served on theon 17.8.2000. The accepted factual position also is, that even though the tenants made a first personal tender to theon 10.8.2000, the said tender was refused. A second personal tender was made on 15.8.2000, which was likewise declined. In the above circumstances, thedeposited all the arrears of rent due, before the trial court on 1.9.2000.

Court's reasoning:
7. The clear position emerging from the pleadings of the rival parties was, that the rent was payable and became due at the end of the month. It is also the accepted position, that rent was never tendered by thefrom month to month. Rent was paid to theas and when demanded. It is not necessary for us to deal with the oral demands, allegedly made by thein the month of August, 2000 (which pertained to arrears with effect from August, 1999). The only relevant consideration in our considered view is, the issuance of the demand notice on 12.8.2000 (which was served on theon 17.8.2000). Since arrears of rent were payable, with reference to at least the twelve preceding months, which obviously became due at the end of every such month, yet in view of the practise acknowledged between the parties, it has to be accepted, that the same would be due on such demand being raised by theThe aforesaid demand, undoubtedly, must be accepted to have been raised through the demand notice dated 12.8.2000. And the said demand, must be deemed to have become known to theon 17.8.2000 (the date when the notice was served).8. In terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the 1972 Act (extracted herein above), we are satisfied to conclude, that the rent became due and payable, when the aforesaid demand notice, came to be served on theInsofar, as the above inference is concerned, we find nothing to the contrary depicted even in the written statement filed on behalf of theIn response to the averments made on behalf of the landlord (in the suit preferred by him), it was acknowledged, that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy. In paragraph 13 of the written statement (extracted in the earlier part of this order) it stands acknowledged, that the rent became due as per the Bengali Calendar, at the end of the month. In our considered view, it makes little difference, whether the rent became due at the end of the Bengali calender month, or the English calender month because from August 1999 to August 2000, rent became due at the end of each one of the 12 intervening months. And as per the demand notice, last of all when the demand notice was served (on 17.8.2000). In view of the clear depiction in Section 5(1)(e), wherein, from the date due, arrears of rent are to be tendered within a fortnight. That alone, will save a tenant from eviction on the ground of10. The situation where rent tendered by the tenant is not accepted by the landlord, is governed by Section 5(4) of the 1972 Act. By virtue of the liberty available to a tenant under Section 5(4) of the 1972 Act, the period of deposit of arrears of rent, with the concerned Court is also a fortnight from the date when the rent had became due. Since we have already concluded herein above, that the rent had became due and payable on 17.8.2000, we are of the view, that the period of a fortnight to make a deposit of arrears of rent in a Court, would expire on 31.8.2000. The deposit made by theon 1.9.2000 was, therefore, clearly beyond the period contemplated under Section 5(4) of the 1972 Act. It is therefore apparent, that the claim raised by thent of arrears of rent was liable to be accepted, as the arrears were not deposited within the postulated time.It is not possible for us to accept the contention, that thewas a protected tenant, with reference to a claim for ejectment on account ofof rent. The instant conclusion of ours, is drawn from the second proviso to Section 5(1)(a) of the 1955 Act, which excludes the applicability thereof, when the same emerges on account ofof rent. It is therefore, not possible for us to accept the submission canvassed at the hands of the learned counsel for thebased on Section 5 of the 1955 Act. We would have even otherwise not permitted the respondent to raise and canvass, any such claim as has been raised before us for the first time under the 1955 Act, for the simple reason, that it was never the case of the tenant, that he was a protected tenant.