Ceetal Mattoo, of Woodhouse Close, Hayes, was filmed by a doorbell camera dragging and kicking his dog, Poppy, along Pinkwell Lane.
The 42-year-old pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the needs of the female bulldog were met, contrary to the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
He was sentenced on March 20 at Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court.
As well as the disqualification, Mattoo was handed a 12-month community order under which he has to complete 80 hours of unpaid work.
He also has to pay £400 court costs and a victim surcharge of £114.
The court was told the RSPCA investigated reports from witnesses that Poppy had been attacked by her owner.
Accompanied by police, RSPCA inspector Mike Beaman seized the dog and took her to be assessed by a vet at RSPCA Finsbury Park Hospital on July 11 last year.
A vet who examined the six-year-old dog said she suffered from mild lameness and there was swelling to the inside of a leg and below an elbow as well as some minor skin lesions, although he concluded these were the signs of degenerative disease.
He treated the dog with painkillers.
The vet concluded that even if the defendant’s mistreatment of the dog had not caused lasting injuries it would still have been painful for her.
He added: “Poppy did appear to have a clear fear response in the presence of her owner which she did not exhibit elsewhere.
“These included repeatedly trying to move away or hide away from the owner and cowering with her tail held low.”
In mitigation, it was said that Mattoo, who signed the dog’s ownership over to the RSPCA, had been experiencing mental health issues.
Poppy has since been rehomed by the animal charity.
Speaking after the sentencing, inspector Beaman said: “Poppy’s mental wellbeing was clearly affected by the way she was treated by her owner and she appeared to be a very reactive dog.
“These problems could have been avoided by appropriate handling by her owner and her behaviour while she was in our care showed she is not fearful of people when handled in a caring and appropriate manner.”
Mattoo was convicted of failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the needs of an animal, for which he was responsible, were met to the extent required by good practice.
This included failing to meet one or a combination of the following welfare needs: a suitable environment, the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, and protection from pain, suffering, injury, or disease.
This was by subjecting the dog to the infliction of physical ill-treatment and psychological distress.
This was contrary to section 9 (1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
