Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. S. BACHAWAT, SINHA, P. N. MUKHERJEE
V. R. VERMA - Appellant
Versus
MOHAN KUMAR MUKHERJEE - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 1792 Of 1958
Decided On : MARCH 26, 1962
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 106 - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13 (6) - NOTICE TO QUIT - SUB-TENANT BECOMING DIRECT TENANT - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
Opposite Party No. 2, Labh Singh was a monthly tenant of suite No. 2 at 7 Clyde Row under opposite party No. 1, Mohon Kumar Mukherjee. Petitioner V. R. Verma, was a monthly, sub-tenant of the aforesaid suite No. 2 under Labh Singh. M. K. Mukherjee alleges that, on or about March 21, 1956, he served on Labh Singh one month's notice to quit the premises expiring with the month of the tenancy. On or about, April 29, 1956 V. R. Verma, gave notice of the sub-letting to M. K. Mukherjee under Section 16 (2) of the Act. On May 25, 1956 M. K. Mukherjee instituted ejectment suit No. 876 of 1956 in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta impleading both Labh Singh and V. R. Verma as party defendants and asking for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground that the premises were reasonably required by the plaintiff for purposes of building and re-building and for making thereto substantial additions and alterations. On or about June 25, 1958 V. R. Verma made an application to the Rent Controller for relief under Section 16 (3) of the Act joining M. K. Mukherjee and Labh Singh as parties thereto. The Rent Controller passed a preliminary order on September 7, 1956 and a final order on June, 4, 1957 declaring that Labh Singh's tenancy interest in the premises do cease and that the sub-tenant V. R. Verma do become a tenant directly under the landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 59/ -. An appeal from this order and a revision petition to the High Court have been dismissed. On or about May 2, 1958 V. R. Verma made an application in suit No. 876 of 1956 praying for declaration that the suit was no longer maintainable in view of the fact that during the pendency of the suit he had become a direct tenant and the notices required by law have not been served upon him. By an order dated May 7, 1958 the Trial Court held that the suit was maintainable and no further notice was required to be served on Verma. Verma has moved this Court on revision against this order and has obtained a rule.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court therefore rightly held that the suit is maintainable.
Issues: Whether the landlord is required to serve notices, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, on a sub-tenant who has become a direct, tenant by an order under Section 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 during; the pendency of a suit for ejectment against, him and the former tenant and whether the landlord is entitled to maintain the suit in the absence of such notices.
Ratio Decidendi: A direct tenancy may be created in favour of the sub-tenant after the elimination of the intermediate tenancy wider Section 16 (3) as also under Sections 13 (4) and 13 (5) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, but those sections unlike Section 15 (3) of the English Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, Section 11 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1948 and Section 13 (2) and the second proviso to Section 12 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Previsions) Act 1950 do not provide that the upgraded sub-tenant shall hold under the landlord on the same terms and conditions on which he would have held under the tenant if the tenancy had Continued and/or had not been determined.
Final Decision: The Rule is discharged. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to the costs of the re-Terence and of the rule.
( 1 ) THIS reference raises the question, whether the land lord is required to serve notices, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, on a sub-tenant who has become a direct, tenant by an order under Section 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 during; the pendency of a suit for ejectment against, him and the former tenant and whether the landlord is entitled to maintain the suit in the absence of such notices. Opposite Party No. 2, Labh Singh was a monthly tenant of suite No. 2 at 7 Clyde Row under opposite party No. 1, Mohon Kumar Mukherjee. Petitioner V. R. Verma, was a monthly, sub-tenant of the aforesaid suite No. 2 under Labh Singh. M. K. Mukherjee alleges that, on or about March 21, 1956, he served on Labh Singh one month's notice to quit the premises expiring with the month of the tenancy. On or about, April 29, 1956 V. R. Verma, gave, notice of the sub-letting to M. K. Mukherjee under Section 16 (2) of the Act. On May 25, 1956 M. K. Mukherjee instituted ejectment suit No. 876 of 1956 in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta impleading both Labh Singh and V. R. Verma as party defendants and asking for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground that the premises were reasonably required by the plaintiff for purposes of building and re-building and for making thereto substantial additions and alterations. On or about June 25, 1958 V. R. Verma made an application to the Rent Controller for relief under Section 16 (3) of the Act joining M. K. Mukherjee and Labh Singh as parties thereto. The Rent Controller passed a preliminary order on September 7, 1956 and a final order on June, 4, 1957 declaring that Labh Singh's tenancy interest in the premises do cease and that the sub-tenant V. R. Verma do become a tenant directly under the landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 59/ -. An appeal from this order and a revision petition to the High Court have been dismissed. On or about May 2, 1958 V. R. Verma made an application in suit No. 876 of 1956 praying for declaration that the suit was no longer maintainable in view of the fact that during the pendency of the suit he had become a direct tenant and the notices required by law have not been served upon him. By an order dated May 7, 1958 the Trial Court held that the suit was maintainable and no further notice was required to be served on Verma. Verma has moved this Court on revision against this order and has obtained a rule. This civil revision case has been referred to this Bench under Chapter II Rule 1 proviso (ii) of the Appellate Side Rules.
( 2 ) BEFORE us Mr. Lala argued that the suit is not now maintainable because (1) the direct tenancy in favour of Verma has not been determined by a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and because (2) the notice required by Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 has not been served upon him.
( 3 ) NOW the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required to determine a contractual monthly tenancy whereas the notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is required to enable the landlord to maintain a suit for ejectment against the tenant on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 13 (1) (d) and (k ). The two notices are required for different purposes though I am inclined to think that both the notices may be effectively given by a single document. The point for consideration in this case is whether both or either of the two notices required to be served by the landlord on the sub-tenant who becomes a direct tenant by an order under Section 16 (3) during the pendency of the suit for ejectment against him and the former tenant.
( 4 ) IT is to be observed that a direct tenancy may be created in favour of the sub-tenant after the elimination of the intermediate tenancy wider Section 16 (3) as also under Sections 13 (4) and
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
