Back
2010 (3) Supreme 16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Pallawi Resources Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Protos Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2763 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15983 of 2008]
Decided on : 26.03.10
Fair rent in respect of a tenancy which subsists for 20 years or more in respect of the premises constructed in or before the year 1984 and used for commercial purpose-Whether is required to be determined by the Rent Controller or whether the same would stand automatically determined under sub- section 4A of Section 17 read with Section 20 of Act, 1997-Held in case there is a case of deemed increase of fair rent or an automatic increase, as contended by appellant, still somebody would have to determine that it has so increased and that authority is definitely the Rent Controller who could exercise the jurisdiction only when he receives an application- Unless an application is received in that regard, nobody would know that in fact a case for increase of fair rent has accrued or is sought for by concerned party- Thus, it could not be said that sub-section 4A of Section 17 was sought to be brought in by way of an exception to general rule of Section 17- Had the legislature intended otherwise, it would have specifically, in its wisdom, made sub-section 4A an exception to sub-section (1) by adding a proviso or by making a specific provision thereto under Section 3,where the Act itself provides some exemptions and provides for specific cases where the Act is not applicable- The fact that West Bengal State legislature did not, even after insertion of sub-section 4A, amend or modify Rule 8 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules, 1999 which prescribes the manner of making applications under Section 17 for fixation of fair rent also fortified the fact that the State legislature did not intend to incorporate sub-section 4A as an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 17- On the contrary, the non-amendment of Rule 8 showed that legislature intended the same procedure to be followed with regard to making an application under any provision of Section 17 for the fixation of fair rent-Appeal held liable to be dismissed. (Para 20 to 23)
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997- Section 17(4A) read with Section 20- A plain reading of Section 20 of the Act shows that Section 20 allows the landlord to only give a notice of his intention to increase the rent, which becomes due and recoverable from the month or period of tenancy next after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is given- Requirement of giving by the landlord a notice of intention to increase the rent instead of a notice of increase of rent and the period of one month which has been allowed before the increased rent becomes due and recoverable from the tenant by the landlord sufficiently indicate that the legislature did not intend to make the rent fixed by the landlord automatically applicable without any reference to the Rent Controller- The stand of appellant that under sub-section 4A of Section 17 there is automatic fixation of fair rent without any reference to the Rent Controller hence held untenable (paras16,17)
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997- Section 17(4A) –Applicability of -A plain reading of Section 17(4A) suggests that the three conditions must co-exist for the applicability of that sub-section in a given case - There must be a subsisting tenancy for twenty years or more- The tenancy must be in respect of a premises constructed in or before the year 1984- The premises must be used for a commercial purpose. (Para 12)
Interpretation of statutes-A cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is that a provision in a statute must be read as a whole and not in isolation ignoring the other provisions of that statute- While dealing with a statutory instrument, one cannot be allowed to pick and choose- It will be grossly unjust if the Court allows a person to single out and avail the benefit of a provision from a chain of provisions which is favourable to him. (Para 13)
Interpretation of statutes - It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature is specially precise and careful in its choice of language- Thus, if a statutory provision is enacted by the legislature in a certain manner, the only reasonable interpretation which can be resorted to by courts is that such was the intention of the legislature and that the provision was consciously enacted in that manner- It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous- The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent- If the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute. (Para 18)
Facts of the Case :
Issue and the controversy that arose for consideration in the present appeal deals with the interpretation of provisions of sub-section 4A of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The question that arose for consideration was whether the fair rent in respect of a tenancy which subsists for 20 years or more in respect of the premises constructed in or before year 1984 and used for commercial purpose is required to be determined by the Rent Controller or whether the same would stand automatically determined under sub- section 4A of Section 17 read with Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Findings of the Court :
It was held that in case there is a case of deemed increase of fair rent or an automatic increase, as contended by appellant, still somebody would have to determine that it has so increased and that authority is definitely the Rent Controller who could exercise the jurisdiction only when he receives an application. Unless an application is received in that regard, nobody would know that in fact a case for increase of fair rent has accrued or is sought for by concerned party. Thus, it could not be said that sub-section 4A of Section 17 was sought to be brought in by way of an exception to general rule of Section 17. Had the legislature intended otherwise, it would have specifically, in its wisdom, made sub-section 4A an exception to sub-section (1) by adding a proviso or by making a specific provision thereto under Section 3,where the Act itself provides some exemptions and provides for specific cases where the Act is not applicable. The fact that West Bengal State legislature did not, even after insertion of sub-section 4A, amend or modify Rule 8 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules, 1999 which prescribes the manner of making applications under Section 17 for fixation of fair rent also fortified the fact that the State legislature did not intend to incorporate sub-section 4A as an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 17. On the contrary, the non-amendment of Rule 8 showed that legislature intended the same procedure to be followed with regard to making an application under any provision of Section 17 for the fixation of fair rent. Appeal was held liable to be dismissed
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the Calcutta High Court under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction whereby the High Court dismissed the application G.A. No. 800 of 2008 in C.S. No. 14 of 2008 moved by the appellant herein under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules on the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court for a summary judgment.
3. The issue and the controversy that falls for consideration in the present appeal deals with the interpretation of the provisions of sub-section 4A of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the fair rent in respect of a tenancy which subsists for 20 years or more in respect of the premises constructed in or before the year 1984 and used for commercial purpose is required to be determined by the Rent Controller or whether the same would stand automatically determined under sub- section 4A of Section 17 read with Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
4. At this juncture, it will be pertinent to set out a brief statement of facts in the backdrop of which the present controversy has arisen before us. A lease deed dated 15.02.1969 was executed between the appellant and the respondent herein for grant of lease, for office purposes, of the entire first floor of premises no. 20, Rajendra Nath Mukherjee Road, Calcutta for a period of twenty years from 01.02.1969 to 31.01.1989 and the rent mutually settled and agreed upon by the parties was Rs. 2,250/- per month as the basic component of the rent (the service charges and other additional payments excluded).
5. Upon the expiry of the term of twenty years, the appellant herein instituted a suit being C.S. No. 778 of 1989 before the Calcutta High Court. The appellant herein, however, had withdrawn the said suit by way of an order dated 18.04.2006. In the meanwhile, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 came into force which repealed the earlier Act of 1956. Section 17(4A) was inserted by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 10.07.2001.
6. The appellant therefore issued to the respondent a notice dated 12.03.2007 under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 intending to increase the rent of the said premises to Rs. 13,500/- per month, it being five times the rent earlier agreed upon by the parties due and recoverable from the month of May 2007. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dated 09.06.2007 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the respondent to hand over vacant, peaceful and khas possession of the said premises was served upon the respondent by the appellant.
7. Since the respondent continued to occupy the said premises, the appellants instituted a suit C.S. No. 14 of 2008 in the High Court of Calcutta under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, praying, inter alia, for a decree of peaceful, vacant and khas possession of the said premises. Subsequently, an application G.A. No. 800 of 2008 for a summary judgment was moved by the appellant wherein it was contended by the appellant that under sub-section 4A of Section 17 there is a mandate for increase of rent which automatically comes in operation upon a notice in that regard being issued under Section 20 without the landlord requiring to perfect the demand before any other authority. It was also urged that if there is no dispute as to the quantum, the increased rent becomes payable from the month or period of tenancy next after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the notice and the refusal without any dispute as to the quantum would not make the landlord liable to apply before the Rent Controller for fixation of rent. It was further contended that only where a tenant refused to accept the increase as suggested by a landlord, the landlord has perforce to seek the increase befor
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
