Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
9th November, 1956.
JAGANNADHA DAS, B.P. SINHA AND IMAM, JJ.
Karnani Properties Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Miss Augustine and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 32 to 34 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, (Mr. D. N. Mookerji & Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; 310 Mr. S. C. Janah, Sr. Advocate (Mr. S.N. Mookerji Advocate with him), for respondents.
West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (West Bengal Act XVII of 1950)., Section 9, clause (g), Sch. A Lease providing for a consolidated rent-Landlord undertaking to provide special amenities including supply of electric current-Applicability of the Act-Determination of fair and reasonable rent.
The appellant was seized and possessed of several municipal holdings collectively known as the Karnani Mansions, 25-A Park Street, together with adjoining premises situated at the junction of Park Street and Free School Street in the city of Calcutta. There were about 210 flats of different types and shops rooms in the said Karnani Mansions let out separately to tenants. The tenant in each of the three cases leading up to the appeals had been inducted by the predecessor in title of the appellant. In each case the tenancy consisted of a single room, a bath and a covered verandah. The tenant had also the use of a number of fans, plug points, towel racks besides a basin, a commode and a glass shelf. The landlord also supplied without any additional charge electrical energy for consumption by the tenant for the use of lamps, fans, radio, ovens for cooking, for ironing, laundering and refrigerators. The landlord was also responsible for repairs of the electric installations and sanitary fittings, as also for supplying service of night guards, sweepers, lift-open etc. The tenant in each case applied before the Rent Controller of Calcutta under section 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950 read with Schedule A of the Act for fixation of standard rent in respect of the flat occupied by the applicant. The landlord resisted the application on the grounds, inter alia, that the Rent Controller was not authorized by the Act to deal with the tenancies in question because the premises were outside the scope of the Act; that there had been a great increase in the Court of maintenance, as also of repairs and replacements of electric and other [installations; that there had been a considerable enhancement of the charge for electricity supplied by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited and of Government duty on the same; that if the Court held that these premises were governed by the provisions of the Act, the landlord was entitled to proportionate increase in respect of those charges; that the fact that the Act does not make specific provision for increasing the rent with reference to the charges aforesaid would point to the conclusion that the Act was not intended to be applied to the tenancies in question. The Rent Controller after having inspections made of the premises in question fixed the standard rent in accordance with the rules laid down in Schedule A to the Act. The rent thus standardised was to take effect from September 1, 1950. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court Calcutta against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. The appellate authority allowed the landlords appeal in part by setting the standard rent at a higher figure than that arrived at by the Rent Controller by applying the provisions of clause (g) of section 9 of the Act. The appellate authority aforesaid negatived the landlords contention that the premises in question providing the special services and amenities aforesaid were outside the ambit of the Act. It gave the land lord relief in respect of the higher charges for electric consumption and Government duty aforesaid. The standard rent thus fixed by the appellate authority was in excess of the original rent agreed between the parties. The tenant in each case moved the High Court of Calcutta in its Revisional jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the original applications allowed them in part, giving effect virtually, though not entirely, to the decision of the Rent Controller and holding that clause (g) of section 9 of the Act was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the cases before the Court. After the rejection by the High Court of the appellants petition for a certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution, the appellant obtained from the Supreme Court special leave to appeal on common questions of law.
Held: (1) The Act applied to the premises and the standard rent must be determined under the provisions of clause (g) of section 9 of the Act.
The term premises as defined in section 2(a) of the Act was wide enough to cover the tenancies with a special incidence and the consolidated monthly rent for the amenities provided by the landlord came within the comprehensive sense in which the word rent was used by the Act and was such liable to be controlled under the Act.
(2) The purpose which the legislature had in view in enacting the
Act and the wide terms in which it defined the term premises leave no manner of doubt that its operative provisions were intended to have a wide application and the mere putting in of a term in the lease, not in terms provided for by any of the clauses in section 9 could not take the tenancy out of the scope of the Act and it would be the duty of the court, in order that the provisions of the Act might have full effect, to give as wide an application to them as was permissible under the Act.
Where, as in the present case, the lease provided for a consolidated monthly rent the Rent Controller and other authorities under the Act were empowered by the provisions of clause (g) of the Act to determine the standard rent on a consideration of all the things that constituted the agreed rent and they did not prohibit a recourse to such to other provisions of the Act as could be applied, either in part or as a whole, in arriving at a fair and reasonable rent.
(3) The decision of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court must therefore, be restored.
Judgement
SINHA, J.: The substantial question for determination in these three analogous appeals by special leave is whether the provisions of S.9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions ) Act, 1950, (which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act ) apply to the three premises which formed the subject matter of three separate proceedings in the Courts below; and, if so, which clause thereof. The common landlord is the appellant in each case, the respondent in each case being the tenant of the particular tenement.
2. In order to appreciate the points of law at issue between the parties, it is necessary to state the relevant facts shown of all details relating to the basic rent and the standard rent fixed at different stages of the proceedings. Those details are not necessary for the determination of these appeals. The undisputed facts are that the appellant is seized and possessed of several municipal holdings collectively known as the Karnani Mansions, 25-A, Park Street, together with adjoining premises situated at the junction of Park Street and Free School Street in the city of Calcutta. There are about 210 flats of different types and shop-rooms in the said Karnani Mansions let out separately to tenants. The tenant in each of the three cases leading up to the appears in this Court had been inducted by the predecessor-in-title of the appellant. In each case the tenancy consisted of a single room, a bath and a covered verandha. The tenant has also the use of a number of fans, plug points, towel racks, besides a basin, a commode and a glass shelf. The landlord also supplies without any additional charge electrical energy for consumption by the tenant for the use of lamps, fans, radio, ovens for cooking, for ironing, laundering and refrigerators. The landlord is also responsible for repairs of the electric installations and sanitary fittings, as also for supplying service of night guards, sweepers, liftmen etc. The tenant in each case applied before the Rent Controller of Calcutta under S. 9 read with Schedule A of the Act for fixation of standard rent in respect of the flat occupied by the applicant. The landlord resisted the application on the ground, inter aria, that the Rent Controller was not authorised by the Act to deal with the tenancies in question because the premises were outside the scope of the Act; that there had been a great increase in the cost of maintenance, as also of repairs and replacements of electric and other installations, that there had been a considerable enhancement of the charge for electricity supplied by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., and of Government duty on the same; that if the Court held that these premises were governed by the provisions of the Act, the landlord was entitled to proportionate increase in respect of those charges; that the Act does not make specific provision for increasing the rent with reference to the charges aforesaid would also point to the conclusion that the Act was not intended to be applied to the tenancies in question. The Rent Controller after having inspections made of the premises in question fixed a standard rent in accordance with the rules laid down in Schedule A to the Act. The rent thus standardized was to take effect from September 1, 1950. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, Calcutta, against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority allowed the landlord s appeal in part by settling the standard rent at a higher figure than that arrived at by the Rent Controller by applying the provisions of cl. (g) of S.9. The Appellate Authority aforesaid negatived the landlord s contention that the premises in question providing the special service and amenities aforesaid were outside the ambit of the Act. It gave the landlord relief in respect of the higher charges for electric consumption and Government duty aforesaid. The standard rent thus fixed by the Appell
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
