HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. P. Mookerjee
SOORAJMALL NAGARMALL - Appellant
Versus
INDIAN NATIONAL DRUG CO. LTD. - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 104 Of 1955
Decided On : FEBRUARY 09, 1955
WEST BENGAL PREMISES RENT CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 38 - Repairs and measures to be undertaken by landlord - Scope and extent - Interpretation of Section 38(3) - Distinction between repairs and reconstruction - Limits of Rent Controller's powers.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord challenged an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller directing him to make repairs to the roof of the tenanted premises under Section 38 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The landlord contended that the Rent Controller could not direct reconstruction or fresh construction under Section 38.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Rent Controller's directions were valid only to the extent that they related to repairs, such as stopping leaks or replacing damaged iron rafters, but not to the extent that they required reconstruction or fresh construction. The court interpreted Section 38(3) as requiring the landlord to keep the premises "wind and water-tight," but not to undertake major repairs or reconstruction.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rent Controller could direct reconstruction or fresh construction under Section 38 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950? 2. What is the scope and extent of the repairs and measures that can be directed by the Rent Controller under Section 38(3) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Rent Controller's powers under Section 38 were limited to directing repairs, and did not extend to reconstruction or fresh construction. The court reasoned that the ordinary law did not allow one party to compel the other to undertake rebuilding or reconstruction, and that Section 38(3) did not give the tenant any higher rights. 2. The court interpreted Section 38(3) as requiring the landlord to keep the premises "wind and water-tight," but not to undertake major repairs or reconstruction. The court noted that the Act provided for eviction of the tenant if the premises were reasonably required by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding, and that this indicated that the landlord was not obligated to undertake major repairs or reconstruction under Section 38(3).
Final Decision: The court made the Rule absolute in part, upholding the Rent Controller's directions only to the extent that they related to repairs, such as stopping leaks or replacing damaged iron rafters, but setting aside the directions that required reconstruction or fresh construction.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained by the landlord against an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on an application filed by the tenant under Section 38, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The Additional Rent Controller has directed,". . . . . ;that the leaky roof must be repaired. Damaged iron rafters must be replaced by good ones and the minor portions of the roof which are likely to collapse should be replaced by way of renewal. Thus, in conclusion I think that the landlord is boundl to make repairs to items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the inspector's report marked Ex I and these items will come within the purview of Section 38 (3) of the Act,"the principal argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in support of the Rule is that under Section 38, Sub-sections (1) and (2) only "repairs" can be directed to be made by the Rent Controller. No reconstruction or fresh construction can be directed to be put up. Further, the directions which the Rent Controller can issue under Sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Act also cannot be in the nature of requisitions for demolition and fresh construction.
( 2 ) THE direction given by the Rent Controller is not contested before me so far as items Nos. 4, 5 and 7 are concerned. The objection raised refers to items Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the inspector's report. They are held by the Additional Rent Controller to be repairs or measures coming under Sub-section (3) of Section 38 without which the premises cannot be habitable or usable except with great inconvenience,
( 3 ) UNDER Sub-section (3) of Section 38 the premises must be kept "wind and water-tight. " As to what is the implication of the provision may be explained with reference to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Third Edn, Volume 4, p. 3312 where 'it is observed that where the obligation is on the part of a tenant to keep his tenement "wind and water tight" it "ought to be construed strictly in favour of the tenant. To put an example, it would seem that the broken glass of windows need not be replaced by new glass, but that an exclusion of wet by boards or other unsightly modes would be sufficient. " The same test may be applied on such party as may be responsible to keep the premises "wind and water tight".
( 4 ) IT is, however, argued on behalf of the tenant that the opening words in Sub-section (3) of Section 38 indicate that it is not only repairs which are required to be done but as also "measures" without which the premises are not habitable or usable except with great inconvenience. It is, on the other hand pointed out and in my view rightly that the nature of the repairs or measures to be undertaken are exemplified by the words following the expression above quoted, viz. , "like keeping them wind and water tight". Reference may also be made to the provisions contained in Section 12 of the same Act. Under proviso (h) to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act liberty is given to the landlord! to evict the tenant not otherwise evitable under the special law if the premises are reasonably required by the landlord either for the purpose of building or for rebuilding or for his own occupation etc.
( 5 ) IT is to be noticed also that the extent of the repairs which can be directed by the Rent Controller to be undertaken under Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 38 of the Act cannot under the proviso to Sub-section (2) aforesaid exceed one-twelfth of the rent payable for one year; the expenses to be incurred for repairs or measures to be undertaken under Sub-section (3), however, are not limited to the amount as under Sub-section (1) and (2 ).
( 6 ) THE principal point to be decided, therefore, in this state of the provisions contained in the different parts of the Act is whether Sub-section (3) of Section 38 gives a right which is larger than the rights given under the ordinary law. Under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, it is the duty of the landlord to keep
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.