MONOJ LAL SEAL AND OTHERSversusOCTAVIOUS TEAAND INDUSTRIES LTD.

                    [2015] 6 S.C.R. 791


             MON OJ LAL SEAL AND OTHERS                        A
                             v.
         OCTAVIOUS TEAAND INDUSTRIES LTD.

              (Civil Appeal No. 3786 of 2015)
                                                               B
                      APRIL21,2015

            [M.Y. EQBALAND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]

     West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - s. 7(1) (2) c
and (3) - Protection against eviction of tenant - Suit for
eviction by Landlord - Tenant's applications u/s. 7(1) and
7(2) - Trial court while allowing the application u/s. 7(1)
directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent- The tenant
instead of depositing the rent to civil court (as required uls. D
7(1) after Amendment Act of 2005) deposited the same to
Rent Controller -Application of tenant for permission to
deposit the arrears of rent before civil court, when reached
before Supreme Court, was rejected with liberty to approach
appropriate court to decide whether non-compliance of s. 7(1) E
in depositing the rent was bonafide - Thereafter application
uls. 7(2) of tenant allowed by trial court and confirmed by
High Court - On appeal held: Protection against eviction is
available to the tenant only after strict compliance of statutory
provisions - In the present case, the tenant failed to comply F
with s. 7(1) - However in view of the decision to Supremo
Court giving liberty to tenant to satisfy his bonafide, order
allowing application uls. 7(2) is correct.

    Dismissing the appeal, the ~ourt                           G

    HELD: 1. The Rent Control Acts have been enacted
in different States with the object to protect the tenants
from illegal eviction without obtaining the decree or order
                            791                                H
792      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A from a competent Court on one or more grounds
  provided in those Acts. At the same time, it is well settled
  that the benefits conferred on the tenants through those
  Rent Control Acts can be enjoyed only after strict
  compliance with the statutory provisions. [Para 28] [805-
B F-G]

       E. Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors.
  (2003) 1SCC123; Atma Ram vs. Shakuntala Rani(2005) 7
  SCC 211: 2005 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 1071; Sar/a Goel and
C Others vs. Kishan Chand(2009) 7 SCC 658: 2009 (10) SCR
  481; Ba/want Singh and Others vs. Anand Kumar Sharma
  and Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 433: 2003 (1) SCR 429; Supreme
  Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and Anr. (1998) 4
  SCC 409: 1998 (2) SCR 795; Mangat Rai &Anr. vs. Kidar
D Nath & Ors. (1981) 1 SCR 476; Pushpa Devi and Ors. vs.
  Milkhi Ram (Dead) By His Lrs. (1990) 2 SCC 134: 1990 (1)
  SCR 278; Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram /chharam alias
  Brijram and Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 242: 1974 (2) SCR 544 -
  referred to.
E
       2. In the instant case, the respondent-tenant
  deposited the rent as required under Section 7(1) of the
  West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 with the Rent
  Controller instead of depositing the same with the Civil
F Judge. The deposit of such rent by the tenant with the
  Rent Controller instead of Civil Judge as per the
  amendments which came into effect on 1.6.2006 was
  either deliberate or a bonafide mistake. This· may be the
  reason, this Court in the earlier special leave petition
G made an observation that the respondent-tenant may
  satisfy the Court that such deposit was bonafide. Having
  regard to the order passed by this Court by giving liberty
  to the tenant to satisfy that such deposit with the Rent
H Controller instead of Civil Judge was bonafide, the
   MONOJ LAL SEAL v. OCTAVIOUS TEA&JNDUSTRIES 793
                       LTD.

 impugned order passed by the High Court is thus fully A
 justified. [Paras 29 and 30] [806-A-E]

                    Case Law Reference

   (2003) 1 sec 123              referred to.    Para 12
                                                                  B
   2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 1071 referred to.         Para 12

   2009 (10) SCR 481            referred to.     Para 12

   2003 (1) SCR 429             referred to.     Para 12          c
   1998 (2) SCR 795             referred to.     Para 1~

   (1981) 1 SCR 476             referred to.     Para 14

   1990 (1) SCR 278             referred to.     Para 14          D
   1974 (2) SCR 544             referred to.     Para 14

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
· 3786of2015
                                                                  E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2014 of the
 High Court at Calcutta in C.O. No. 914 of 2012.

      P. P. Rao, Bhaskar Gupta, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Soma
 Mullick; Sebat Kumar D. for the Appellants.                      F

    Dr.A. M. Singhvi, PinakiAddy, Dev Mukherjee, Chander
 Shekhar Ashri for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                  G
     M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
 order dated 27.3.2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta
 in C.O. No. 914 of2012 dismissing the application filed by the   H
794          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     appellants and upholding the orders dated 19.1.2012 and
      21.2.2012 passed by 5'" Bench, Presidency Small Causes
      Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 49 of 2008-E and
      rejecting the application for review of the order passed under
      Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
B
           3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

           4. The father of Appellant No.1 was owner of a two storied
      building in a posh locality in South Kolkata (near Park Street)
c     with a covered area of about 4650 sq. ft. on the rent of only Rs.
      429/- per month. The tenancy of the Respondent was attomed
      by the Official Trustee of West Bengal in favour of Appellant
      No.1 herein and since then the respondent-tenant, which is a
      corporate house is occupying the entire first floor of the building.
D
            5. It is case of the appellants that the respondent has
      embroiled the appellants (owner-landlord) in a series of
      litigations. It had earlier tried to encroach upon the lawn
      resulting in litigation which even came up to this Court.
E      6. The appellants-plaintiffs instituted a suit against the
  respondent for eviction on the ground of default in payment of
  rent and personal necessity before the Presidency Small
  Causes Court at Calcutta in respect of the suit premises. The
F suit was contested by the respondent, who after appearance
  filed two applications, one under Section 7(1) and another
  under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,
  1997 (hereinafter referred to as the '1997 Act'). On 11.4.2008,
  the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act was allowed
G permitting the defendant-respondent to deposit the arrears of
  rent as prayed for in the said application and thereafter month
  by month in the Court within the scheduled date as per law.
  The respondent, thereafter, alleged to have continuously
  defaulted in payment of rent despite order to pay rent was
H passed by the Court under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act.
  MONOJ LAL SEAL v. OCTAVIOUS TEA& INDUSTRIES 795
              LTD. [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     7. Appellant's further case is that instead of depositing A
the monthly rent before the Civil Judge, tenant had deposited
monthly rent with the Rent Controller and on 17.6.2010, the
respondent-tenant filed an application under Section 151 of
the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to deposit the
rents for the month of April, 2008 to March, 2010 along with B
current rent before the trial court. That application was rejected
by the trial Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent
then moved a revision petition before the High Court being
C.O. No.2964 of 2010, which was rejected by order dated
5.1.2011 holding that the tenant was bound to comply with the C
directions of Section 7(1) of the Rent Act. On 26.8.2011,
respondent filed another application under Section 151, CPC
before the trial Judge seeking permission to deposit the
arrears of rent, and that application was also rejected.
                                                                   D
     8. It is worth to mention here that respondent had
challenged High Court's order dated 5.1.2011 by way of review
application, which was rejected by the High Court on both
merits and delay. Thereafter, respondent moved the Apex
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution by way of special      E
leave petition being SLP (Civil) Nos. 20181-82 of2013, which
was dismissed on 29.7.2013 leaving it open to the SLP
petitioner (respondent herein) to raise all questions before the
court below where the trial is pending including the default       F
alleged against him so as to consider whether the same can
be treated as bonafide in order to satisfy the condition laid
down under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy
Act, 1997.

      9. After disposing of application under Section 7(1 ), the G
trial Judge disposed of the application under Section 7(2) of
the 1997 Act on 19.1.2012 with the direction to the respondent-
tenantto deposit a sum of Rs.91,419/-within thirty days from
the date of the order. However, plaintiffs-appellants filed an H
796         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     application for recall of order dated 19.1.2012. The said
      application was rejected holding that the trial Judge had no
      power to review his own order and accordingly he fixed the
      next date for framing of issues in the matter.

 B     10. Dissatisfied appellants, therefore, preferred civil
  revision petition being C.O. No.914 of2012 against the orders
  dated 19.1.2012 and 21.2.2012, whereby the Presidency
  Small Causes Court had allowed the application of the
  Respondent tenant under Section 7(2) of the Act, thereby
C rendering the remedy of the appellants u/s. 7(3) of the 1997
  Act, infructuous. However, this revision petition was dismissed
  by the High Court vide impugned order. Hence, the present
  appeal by Special Leave by the appellants.

D         11. We have heard, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel
      appearing for the appellants and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned
      senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

        12. After narrating the entire facts and the orders time to
E time passed by the trial court under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of
  the Act and also the orders passed by the High Court in revision
  application and also the order passed by this Court in special
  leave petition, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing
  for the appellants, contended that since the respondent-tenant
F failed to comply with the statutory provisions as contained in
  Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act, the High Court has committed
  grave error of law in passing the impugned order holding that
  there is a compliance of the aforesaid provisions of the Act
  and submitted that in absence of strict compliance of the
G statutory provisions, the tenant shall be held to be a defaulter.
  On this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the decisions
  passed in the case of E. Palanisamy vs. Pa/anisamy (Dead)
  By Lrs. and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 123, Atma Ram vs.
  Shakuntala Rani, (2005) 7 SCC 211, Sar/a Goel and Others
H vs. Kishan Chand, (2009) 7 SCC 658, Ba/want Singh and
  MON OJ LAL SEAL v. OCTAVIOUS TEA & INDUSTRIES 797
               LTD. [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

Others vs. Anand Kumar Sharma and Others, (2003) 3 A
SCC 433 and Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union
of India and Another, (1998) 4 SCC 409.
     13. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that as a B
matter of fact there is no default committed by the respondent-
tenant in depositing the rent. On the first day of appearance,
the respondent filed an application seeking a direction to penmit
defendant-tenant to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller.
The said prayer was allowed by order dated 11.4.2008. C
Learned counsel submitted that the respondent-tenant
deposited the entire rent and was continuously depositing the
rent till 2010 without any demor or objection. Learned counsel
conceded that by virtue of amendment, which came into effect
from 1.6.2006, the word ' Rent Controller'' has been substitut~-d D
                         1




by the word "Civil Judge". With the bonafide belief that the
rent had to be deposited with the Rent Controller, the
respondent-tenant continuously deposited the same.

     14. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel further contended E
that in any view of the matter application under Section 7(3) of
the Act is pending wherein prayer has been made to struck
out the defence for the alleged non-compliance of the provisions
of Section 7(2) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that
Rent Control Act is a beneficial legislation and the Court has F
interpreted the provisions taking into consideration the intention
of the legislature to give protection to the tenant. In this
connection learned counsel would rely upon the decisions
passad in the case of Mangat Rai &Anr. vs. Kidar Nath &
Ors., (1981) 1 SCR476, PushpaDevi and Others vs. Milkhi G
Ram (Dead) By His Lrs., (1990) 2 SCC 134, and Nagindas
Ramdas vs. Dalpatram /chharam alias Brijram and Others,
(1974) 1 SCC 242. Lastly, Dr. Singhvi submitted that earlier
when the matter came to this Court by way of a special leave H
798         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     petition, this Court dismissed it on 29.7.2013 with the
      observation that the trial court shall consider the bonafide of
      the tenancy in depositing the rent.

          15. Before appreciating the submissions made by learned
B     counsel, we would like to quote here Section 7 of the West
      Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997:

           "7. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection
           against eviction. -
c          (1 )(a) On a suit being instituted by the landlord for eviction
           on any of the grounds referred to in Section 6, the tenant
           shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this
           section, pay to the landlord or deposit with the Civil Judge
           all arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it was
D
           last paid and upto the end of the month previous to that
           in which the payment is made together with interest at
           the rate often percent per annum.

           (b) Such payment or deposit shall be made within one
E          month of the service of summons on the tenant or, where
           he appears in the '[suit] without the summons being
           served upon him, within one month of his appearance.

           (c) The tenant shall thereafter continue to pay to the
F          landlord or deposit with the Civil Judge month by month
           by the 15th of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent
           to the rent at that rate.

           (2) if in any suit referred to in sub-section (1 ), there 1s any
G          dispute as to the amount of the rent payable by the tenant,
           the tenant shall, within the time specified in that sub-
           section, deposit with the Civil Judge the amount admitted
           by him to be due from him together with an application
           for determination of the rent payable. On receipt of the
H          application, the Civil Judge shall, having regard to the
  MON OJ LAL SEAL v. OCTAVIOUS TEA & INDUSTRIES                      799
               LTD. [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     rate at which rent was last paid and the period for which        A
     default may have been made by the tenant, make, as
     soon as possible within a period notexceeding one year,
     an order specifying the amount, if any, due from the tenant
     and, thereupon, the tenant shall, within one month of the
     date of such order, pay to the landlord the amount so            B
     specified in the order:

       Provided that having regard to the circumstances of
     the case, an extension of time may be granted by the
     Civil Judge only once and the period of such extension C
     shall not exceed two months.

     (3) If the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred
     to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) within the time
     specified therein or within such extended time as may            D
     be granted, the Civil Judge shall order the defence
     against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall
     proceed with the hearing of the suit.

     (4) If the tenant makes deposit or payment as required           E
     by sub-section ( 1) or sub-section (2), no order for delivery
     of possession of the premises to the landlord on the
     ground of default in payment of rent by the tenant, shall
     be made by the Civil Judge, but he may allow such cost
     as he may deem fitto the landlord:                               F

     Provided that the tenant shall not be entitled to any relief
     under this sub-section if, having obtained such relief once
     in respect of the premises, he again makes default in
     payment of rent for four months within a period of twelve G
     months or for three successive rental periods where rent
     is not payable monthly."

    16. Section 6 of the Act lays down the provision of
protection of tenant against eviction. Section 6 provides that        H
800         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A a tenant shall not be evicted unless an order or decree for
  recovery of possession of any premises is made in favour of
  the landlord and against the tenant on the ground inter alia
  that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent in three months
  within a period of twelve months, or for three rental periods
B within a period of three years where the rent is not payable
  monthly. Section 7, as quoted above, gives further protection
  to a tenant from eviction on the ground of default in the event
  the tenant complied with the order and direction passed by
  the Court in a proceeding instituted by the landlord for eviction.
C In order to get the benefit of protection against eviction, a
  tenant on an application or otherwise shall have to deposit
  with the Civil Judge all arrears of rent together with interest
  within one month from the service of summons on the tenant
  as contemplated under Section 7(1) of the Act.
0
           17. The word "Controller" in sub-section (1) of Section 7
      was substituted by the word "Civil Judge" by West Bengal
      Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 2005 which came into
      effect from 1.6.2006.
E
           18. As noticed above, the respondent filed two
      applications, one under Section 7(1) and another under Section
      7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. By the
      said application under Section 7(1 ), the appellant made the
F     following prayer:

           "12. This application is bona fide and made for the ends
           of justice.

G            Your petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that the
           defendant may be permitted to deposit the amount of
           current monthly rent for the month of March 2008 and
           subsequent months thereafter payable by the defendant
           in the Office of the Learned Rent Controller, Calcutta and
H          further permit the defendant to deposit in this Learned
   MON OJ LAL SEAL v. OCTAVIOUS TEA & INDUSTRIES 801
                LTD. [M. Y. EQBAL, J.)          •

      Court the sum of Rs.27,500/- being the arrears rent for          A
      23 (twenty three) months with interest@ 10% p.a. and/
      or pass such further order or orders as your Honour may
      deem fit and proper."

      19. The said application under Section 7(1) was allowed          B
 by the Court on 11.4.2008 permitting the respondent-tenant to
 deposit the rent as prayed in the petition. The order dated
 11.4.2008 is reproduced hereunder:-

       "Defendant filed today a put up petition along with two         c
      other Petition u/s 7(1) and 7(2) of the W.B.P.T.Act on the
      grounds are stated therein and a Vakalatnama. Let the
      same kept with the record.

      This case record is put up today. Learned advocate for           D
      the defendant is present moved. The petition u/s 7 ( 1) is
      taken up for hearing. Perused the petition. Heard Court
      allowed.

      Defendant is permitted to deposit rent as prayed in the
      petition u/s. 7(1) at party's risks and responsibility without   E
      prejudice to the rights, and contention of the party and
      thereof month by month within date as per law.

      The petition u/s. 7(2) be put up todate.Acopy served us
      the meantime."                                                   F

       20. The perusal of the order dated 11.4.2008 would show
  that the Court instead of directing the tenant to deposit the
  rent with the Civil Judge, as per the amendment which came
  into effect from 1.6.2006, permitted the tenant to deposit the G
  rent as prayed for in the petition. Consequently, the respondent-
. tenant deposited the rent within 30 days as required under
  Section 7 ( 1) of the Act, but the said deposit was made with
  the Rent Controller.
                                                                       H
802         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        (2015] 6 S.C.R.


A      21. The Suit remained pending and in the meantime, the
  appellant filed an application under Section 7(3) of the said
  Act for striking out the defence of the defendant on the ground,
  inter alia, that the respondent-tenant is not depositing the rent.
  The said application is still pending for hearing. In the
B meantime, the trial Judge put up the application filed by the
  respondent under Section 7(2) of the Act for hearing. The said
  application was disposed of on 19.1.2012.

       22. The trial court held that the respondent did not comply
C with the mandatory provisions as envisaged in Section 7 (1) of
  the Act by not depositing the rent before the Court where the
  Suit is pending and instead went on depositing the rent before
  the Rent Controller. The trial court, therefore, by order dated
  19.1.2012 directed the respondent-tenant to deposit
D Rs.1, 18,919/- after deducting Rs.27 ,500/- which was already
  deposited within one month from the said order.

            23. It appears that the appellants-landlords filed an
      application for review or recall of order dated 19.1.2012. The
E     trial court considered the said application and finally rejected
      it on 21.2.2012 by passing the following order:

           "Both sides are present through their lawyers.

            Petition dt. 01.2.12 filed by Plaintiff is taken up for hearing.
 F
            Heard both sides. Perused the petition filed by plaintiff.

           Having considered the submissions of both sides and
           after going through the case record as well as order dt.
G          19.01.12, I find that plaintiff through the instant petition
           prays for cancellation/rescind the purported order dt.
           19.01.12 passed by this Court. Plaintiffs have also
           prayed for the rejection of application u/s 7 (2) of W. B. P. T.
           Act, filed by defendants.
H
  MONOJ LAL SEAL v. OCTAVIOUS TEA& INDUSTRIES                  803
              LTD. [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     In view of above facts and circumstances, it appears A
     before this Court that the application U/s 7(2) of W.B. P.T.
     Act filed by defendant was disposed of in presence of
     both sides and upon contested hearing. Accordingly, the
     prayer of plaintiffs is devoid any merit. Moreover, this
     Court has no jurisdiction to review its own order.           B

     Hence, the petition filed by plaintiffs on 01.02.12 is
     rejected on contest.

     Defendant have complied the order dt. 19.01.12 and          C
     deposited the amount. Let, the Xerox copy of challan
     be kept with this record.

      Fix 20.04.12 for framing issue."

     24. These two orders dated 19.01.2012 and 21.2.2012 D
were challenged by the appellants-landlords by filing a civil
revision before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court after
taking into consideration all the facts including those mentioned
hereinabove dismissed the revision petition by holding as
under:                                                            E

      "This being the position, in my view, the defendant has
     complied with the orders passed on the application under
     Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. It may be mentioned herein
     that the said application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 F
     Act was disposed of on contests and then the defendant/
     tenant/opposite party herein has complied with the orders
     passed therein. Under the circumstances, the order
     dated 19.01.2012 passed by the learned trial Judge, in
     my view, cannot be said to be contrary to the order passed G
     by the Hon'bleApex Court ratherthe learned trial Judge,
     in my view, has disposed of the said application in
     accordance with the law.

     So far as the impugned orders are concerned, though         H
804       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A        after disposing of the application under Section 7(1) of
         the 1997 Act, the defendant/tenant was not able to comply
         with the orders, yet, if there is any default for the
         intervening period prior to the date of disposal of the
         application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, in my
 B       view, the Court is free to pass appropriate orders
         calculating the arrears of rent to be paid. Such a recourse
         has been adopted by the learned trial Judge by passing
         the order dated 19.01.2012. The said order dated
         19.01.2012 has already been complied with by the
c        defendant/tenant/opposite party herein by depositing the
         amount as per direction of the Court on 07 .02.2012, i.e.
         within the 30 days from the date of disposal of the
         application under Section 7(2) 0r int: 1997 Act. In my
         view, while passing the order dated 21.2.2012 for review,
D
         the learned trial Judge had no other alternative but to
         dismiss the said application, though he has recorded a
         different ground that he has no power to review his own
         order."
E       25. It is worth to mention here that as against the finding
  of the trial court that since the respondent-tenant deposited
  the rent with the Rent Controller instead of depositing it in the
  Court respondent-tenant became a defaulter as contemplated
F under Section 7(1) of the Act, tenant filed the review petition
  under Section 151 CPC. The said application was rejected
  and the revision petition filed against the said order was also
  dismissed by the High Court. The review petition filed by the
  respondent in the High Court was dismissed by order dated
G 14.2.2013. The respondent then moved before this Court
  against the order dated 14.2.2013 by fling a special leave
  petition. The said special leave petition was taken up on
  29. 7 .2013 and was dismissed with the observation that it would
  be open to the SLP pP.titioner (respondent-tenant herein) to
H raise all questions befo:-e the Court, as to whether the alleg~d
  MONOJ LAL SEAL v. OCTAVIOUS TEA& INDUSTRIES                     805
    .         LTD. [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

default is bona fide. The order dated 29.1:2013 passed by A
this Court is quoted herein below:

      "We see no ground to entertain these special leave
      petitions. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
                                                                   B
      However, we leave it open to the petitioner to raise all
      questions before the Court below where the trial is
      pending including the default alleged against him so as
      to consider whether the same can be treated as bona
      fide in order to satisfy the condition laid down under       c
      Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,
      1997."

    26. As discussed above, the instant appeal by special
leave is against orders dated 19.1.2012 and 21.2.2012 passed D
by the trial court rejecting the review petition filed by the
appellants-landlords holding that the respondent-tenant has
complied with the order passed on the application under
Section 7 (2) of the Act.

     27. In the background of all these facts and the sequence     E
of the orders passed by Small Causes Court up to this Court,
we have carefully analysed the decisions of this Court referred
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

      28. Indisputably, the Rent Control Acts have been enacted F
 in different States with the object to protect the tenants from
·illegal eviction without obtaining the decree or order fro111 a
 competent Court on one or more grounds provided in those
 Acts. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits
 conferred on the tenants through those Rent Control Acts can G
 be enjoyed only after strict compliance with the statutory
 provisions.

    29. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, mainly contended that Section 7(1) of 1997 Act H
806         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 6 S.C.R.


A shall have to be strictly complied with by the tenant by
  depositing entire rent as contemplated in the said provision
  within a fixed time. But in the instant case, there is no dispute
  that the respondent-tenant deposited the rent as required under
  Section 7(1) of the Act with the Rent Controller instead of
B depositing the same with the Civil Judge. The deposit of such
  rent by the tenant with the Rent Controller instead of Civil Judge
  as per the amendments which came into effect on 1.6.2006
  was either deliberate or a bonafide mistake. This may be the
  reason, this Court in the earlier special leave petition made
C an observation that the respondent-tenant may satisfy the Court
  that such deposit was bonafide.

        30. We have given our anxinw• rnn~!~eration to the matter
  and the order impugned passed by the High Court holding
D thatthe orders dated 19.1.2012 and 21.2.2012 passed by the
  Small Causes Court need no interference. We are also of the
  same opinion that having regard to the order passed by this
  Court by giving liberty to the tenant to satisfy that such deposit
  with the Rent Controller instead of Civil Judge was bonafide,
E the impugned order passed by the High Court is thus fully
  justified.

           31. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in
      this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
F
      Kalpana K Tripathy                            Appeal dismissed.