BHAGIRATH AGARWALversusM/S. SIMPLEX CONCRETE & PILES (I) PVT. LTD. & ORS.

                              [2017) 3 S.C.R. 698 .


A                           BHAGIRATH AGARWAL
                                        v.
      M/S. SIMPLEX CONCRETE & PILES (I) PVT. LTD. & ORS.
                                              y


                    (Civil Appeal Nos. 7544-7546 of2008)
B                             . MARCH 23, 2017
            [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
            FVest Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - ss.17(2A), 34 -
    Denial 1~[ interest for arrears of rent to be paid in installment -
    Propriety of - Default in payment of rent by respondent-tenant -
c   Ejectment suit by appellanl-landlord - City civil court directed
    respondent-tenant to pay arrears of rent in installments, howeve1;
    without any interest thereon - Challenge by appellant in High Court,
    rejected - On appeal, held: The statutory provision is very clear -
    Whenever payment of rent including arrears is permitted to be paid
D   in instal/Juents, the statute contemplates 'that the beneficiary shall
    be granted interest - Thus, once the rent including the arrears is
    permitted to be paid in i11stall111ents, there is no discretion available
    with the Court to deny interest - It is the statutory right and
    entitle111ent of the landlord to get interest - This is irrespective of the
    iustification or expla11atio1t, if any, available ,for the non-
E
    payment - Appella111 shall be entitled to interest.
          Disposing of the appeals, the Court
          HELD: 1.1 The statutory provision of Section 17(2A) of
    the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is very clear.
F   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 of the Act in case the landlord has refused to
    provide the amenities and in case the tenant spent money for
G
    p~oviding the amenities, the said amount, subject to the conditions
    therein, can be set off. Though, there is such a case set np by the
    tenant, yet no set off has been granted by the Trial Court, and the
    tenant was permitted to pay the dues in installments. Once the
    arrears arc -l1ermitted to be paid in installments, there is no
H   discretion available with the Court to deny interest. It is not a
                                     698
   BHAGIRATH AGARWAL v. M/S. SIMPLEX CONCRETE &                          699
                PILES (I) PVT. LTD.

discretionary relief; it is the statutory right and entitlement of       A
the landlord to get interest. Th~ appellant sh~ll be entitled to
interest. [Para 6] · [700-F-H; 701-A]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7544-
7546 of2008.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2007 of the High Court      B
at Calcutta in C. 0. No. 2503 of2006 with C. 0. No. 3811 of2006 with
C. A. N. No. 7802 of2006
                                  WITH
      C. A. Nos. 7552-7554 of2008.                                        c
      S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Pawan Upadhyay, Mrs. Anish Upadhyay,
P. Mishra, Nishan Kumar, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Syed Ali,Ahmad,
Syed Tanweer Ahmad, S.S. Bandyopadhyay, Mohan Pandey, Ms. Daisy
Hannah, Shekhar Kumar, Adv.s. for the appearing parties.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                           D
      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:-                             E
                                                   ·,

       "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, F
       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 G
       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
                                                                          H
700             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 3 S.C.R.


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.
B           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
c     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
D     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
E             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."
F            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
G
      the amenities, the said amount, subjecttotl1e conditions therein, can be
      set off. Though, there is such acase 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.
H
   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                                                      B

      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