IMPORTANT POINT
The West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, is applicable to non residential and commercial premises as well.

Headnote:(i) West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976—Sections 2(a), (b), (c), (f), 3(1) (2), 4 and 12—Termination of tenancy —Failure on part of industrial unit to commence production and/or manufacturing activity—Cancellation of lease deed executed in favour of appellant—West Bengal Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. by three different indenture of lease each for a period of 99 years demised in favour of appellant three separate industrial sheds—Appellant did not commence any manufacturing activity—Notices u/s 3(1) of the Act were issued by the Prescribed Authority calling upon appellant to hand over possession of industrial sheds—Writ petitions filed challenging order of eviction—Appellants submitted that demised premises being industrial sheds and not residential premises, provisions of the Act can have no application—Whether the Act is intended to apply only to residential premises—(No)—Definition of the word ‘premises’ as given in Section 2(c) of the Act is a very comprehensive one—Clause (1a) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act cannot lead to an inference that the Act under consideration can have application to residential buildings alone and not to any other type of building or land or gardens or grounds etc. where commercial or industrial activity is carried on—Whether termination of tenancy of appellant was justified—(Yes)—There was a clear violation of terms of the lease.
       Held : The Preamble of the Act says that it is an Act to provide for the regulation of certain incidents of tenancy in relation to Government premises in West Bengal. The Preamble does not say that the Act is meant for regulation of residential tenancies alone. The definition of "Government premises" in Section 2(a) is very wide. It means any premises which is owned by the State Government or by a Government undertaking except the official residence of any person authorized to occupy any premises in consideration of the office which he holds under the State Government or a Government undertaking. Therefore, all kinds of premises whether commercial, industrial or residential, if owned by the State Government or by a Government undertaking would be covered by the definition. But, it specifically excludes the official residence of any person authorized to occupy any premises in consideration of the office which he holds under the State Government or a Government undertaking for the time being. (Para 8)
       As the language shows, the definition of the word "premises" as given in Section 2(c) of the Act is a very comprehensive one and it not only means any building or hut or part of a building or hut and a seat in a room, let separately but also includes godowns, gardens and out-houses appurtenant thereto and also any furniture supplied or any fittings or fixtures affixed for the use of the tenant in such building, hut or seat in a room, as the case may be. A "seat in a room" or "gardens" or "godowns" by themselves do not qualify to be called a residential building. A residence ordinarily means a place where one resides; the act or fact of abiding or dwelling in a place for some time; an act of making ones home in a place. "Residential" ordinarily means - used, serving or designed as a residence or for occupation by residents; relating to or connected with residence. Gardens or grounds or any furniture supplied or fittings or fixtures affixed in a building or seat in a room can by no stretch of imagination be called or said to be a residential building, but they are included in the definition of premises. This shows that the legislature intended to give a very wide and all comprehensive definition of premises and did not intend to give it a restricted meaning. The opening part of the definition of the word "premises" in Section 2(c) employs the word "any". Any is a word of very wide meaning and prime facie the use of it excludes limitation.(Para 10)
       The argument based on clause (1a) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act has hardly any substance. It is important to note that the aforesaid clause was introduced in Section 3 of the Act by an amendment made by West Bengal Act No.46 of 1980. Section 3 of the Act provides for automatic termination of tenancy in respect of a Government premises on the happening of certain contingencies. Clause (i) contemplates the situation where the lessee has violated the terms of the lease. This is couched in very wide terms and no inference can be drawn therefrom that it contemplates only a residential lease. In whatever way this clause is interpreted it cannot be restricted only to a residential lease but would cover all kinds of leases including a commercial or industrial lease. Clause (1a) has been introduced to squarely cover a situation where the lessee has built a house or has acquired an apartment either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family within a reasonable distance from Government premises under his tenancy. A sub-clause of a section introduced to cover a particular type of contingency cannot cut down the scope or content of other clauses of the same section or the main provisions of the Act nor can the addition of the said sub-clause by way of a subsequent amendment whittle down or restrict the applicability or reach of the whole enactment. Therefore, clause (1a) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act cannot lead to an inference that the Act under consideration can have application to residential buildings alone and not to any other type of building or land or gardens or grounds etc. where commercial or industrial activity is carried on.(Para 11)
       It may be mentioned here that the Chairman of the Corporation, in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions which were filed by the appellant at the earlier stage, after considering the contemporaneous documents and the report of the concerned sub-Assistant Engineer, incharge of Baltikuri Industrial Estate, has recorded a clear finding that the unit is non-functioning one and was lying closed over a long period. The report of the West Bengal State Electricity Board showed that the commercial line and the industrial line had been disconnected in 1994-96 and the total dues of the appellant for the two service connections were Rs.2,78,415/-. The fact that electricity connection had been disconnected several years back fully corroborates the stand of the respondent that the unit is lying closed for a long period and no manufacturing activity was being carried on. Thus, there was a clear violation of the terms of the lease and the tenancy of the appellant stood automatically terminated under Section 3(2)(i) of the Act.(Para 13)
       Since it has been found as a fact that the appellant has contravened the provisions of clauses 2(f)1 and B of the lease deed, it cannot claim any right under clause VI(b). Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to exercise the option to acquire ownership of the demised industrial sheds and his claim in that regard is wholly baseless.(Para 14)
       (ii) WORDS AND PHRASES—Word ‘residence’ or ‘residential’ ordinarily means—A place where one resides; the act or fact of abiding or dwelling in a place for some time; an act of making one’s home in a place.(Para 10)
       (iii) WORDS AND PHRASES—Word ‘includes’—It is generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute.(Para 10)
       (iv) WORDS AND PHRASES—Word ‘any’—It is a word of very wide meaning and prima facie use of it excludes limitation.

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order 13.12.2005 of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by which the letters patent appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, affirming the judgment and order dated 16.8.2004 of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant wherein challenge was laid to the cancellation of lease deed which had been executed in its favour.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition by the appellant herein may be noticed in brief. The West Bengal Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (for short "Corporation") by three different indentures of lease each for a period of 99 years demised in favour of the appellant M/s Associated Indem Mechanical Pvt. Ltd., three separate industrial sheds bearing nos.Y-76, Y-73 and Y-72 at Baltikuri Industrial Estate, Howrah on 9.2.1970, 26.5.1972 and 31.8.1977 respectively. Clauses 2(f)1, 2(j) and 3(B) of the lease deed which are relevant for the controversy in hand are being reproduced below:-

"2(f)1. To use the demised premises as a place for carrying on manufacturing business and/or purposes connected with any manufacturing process including processing, manufacture or assembling of machine, tools, implements, instruments, furnaces, heaters, ovens, scientific apparatus, inventions and other industrial products.

2(j) To start manufacture and production as per Sub-Clauses (f)(1) of this Clause 2, (if not already started) within six months from the date of these presents or within any extended period which may be granted by Government under exceptional circumstances.

3(B). If the rent hereby reserved or any part thereof shall remain unpaid for six months after becoming payable or if any convents on the part of the Lessee herein contained shall not be performed/observed or if the demised premises be not used by the Lessee for purposes mentioned in Clause 2(f) hereof for a continuous period of six months then and in any such event, it shall be lawful for the lessor or the Government at any time thereafter to determine the Lease and to re-enter upon the demised premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and thereupon this demise shall absolutely determine without prejudice to the rights of the Lessor or the Government in respect of breach of the Lessees covenants herein contained.

All the three lease deeds contain identical clauses. The Prescribed Authority sent a notice under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act") to the appellant on 15.3.1999 as it failed to commence production and/or manufacturing activity, but the notice was returned with the postal endorsement "abolished". After about six months, the Prescribed Authority issued another notice on 13.9.1999 by which the lease deed was terminated and the appellant was asked to hand over possession of the industrial sheds. The notice was returned with the remarks "not known". The Corporation, thereafter, took over possession of the plots on 25.2.2000. However, on the representation made by the appellant and on furnishing undertaking to commence manufacturing activity and tendering rent, the possession was handed over back to it on 17.5.2000. Even thereafter the appellant did not commence any manufacturing activity and consequently two notices under Section 3(1) of the Act were issued by the Prescribed Authority on 29.5.2002 calling upon the appellant to hand over possession of the industrial sheds. The appellant filed two writ petitions before the Calcutta High Court which were disposed of by a learned Single Judge by separate orders. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the appellant, a direction was issued to the Chairman of the Corporation to give oral hearing to the appellant. The Chairman of the Corporation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant passed a detailed order on 11.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 18

IMPORTANT POINT The West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, is applicable to non residential and commercial premises as well.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
The West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, is applicable to non residential and commercial premises as well.