Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harries, Banerjee
UNITED COMMERCIAL PRESS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SATYANARAIN CHAMARIA - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 168 Of 1951
Decided On : JANUARY 9, 1952
WEST BENGAL RENT CONTROL ACT, 1950 - SECTION 18 (5) - AMENDING ACT OF 1950 - APPLICABILITY TO PENDING SUITS - CONSTRUCTION - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - SECTION 14 - RELIEF AGAINST EVICTION - DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant defaulted on rent payments for several months, leading to the landlord filing a suit for ejectment. During the pendency of the suit, the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1950 came into force, introducing changes to the law governing rent control. The tenant argued that the new Act barred the landlord's suit, while the landlord contended that the tenant was not entitled to relief due to his defaults.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended by the Amending Act of 1950, applied to pending suits, including the one at hand. However, the court found that the tenant had defaulted in paying rent for several consecutive months, both before and after the Amending Act came into force. This default barred the tenant from receiving relief under Section 14 of the 1950 Act, which provided for relief against eviction.
Issues: 1. Whether the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended by the Amending Act of 1950, applied to pending suits. 2. Whether the tenant was entitled to relief under Section 14 of the 1950 Act, considering his defaults in paying rent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 5 of the Amending Act of 1950, which stated that the amended Act would apply to pending suits and be deemed to have always applied. The court held that this provision should be construed to mean that only the amended portions of the 1950 Act, particularly the amended definition of "tenant" and the substitution of words in Section 18 (5), would apply to pending suits. This interpretation gave effect to the purpose of the Amending Act, which was to nullify a previous court decision that had restricted relief to certain categories of tenants. 2. The court examined Section 14 of the 1950 Act, which provided relief against eviction. The court noted the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 14, which barred relief if the tenant defaulted in paying rent on three occasions within a period of eighteen months. The court held that this proviso applied to the tenant in the present case, as he had defaulted in paying rent for several consecutive months, both before and after the Amending Act came into force. This default prevented the court from granting the tenant any relief under Section 14.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's appeal, upholding the landlord's suit for ejectment. The court found that the tenant was not entitled to relief under the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended, due to his defaults in paying rent.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and decree of P. B. Mukharji J. , dated September 6, 1951 made in favour of the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment.
( 2 ) THE suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession of portions of certain premises known as No. 32 Sir Harriram Goenka Street on the ground that the tenancy of the said premises had been 'ipso facto' determined by reason of the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1948.
( 3 ) IT appears that the tenancy commenced on April 1, 1944, the rent then being Rs. 525/-per mensem. Later in the year 1948 the rent was increased in circumstances which we know nothing of to a sum of Rs. 840/- per mensem. But no point is taken that this increase was in any way illegal.
( 4 ) IN November 1948 there appears to have been some quarrel between the parties and in that month the tenant refused to pay his rent and never paid any rent for the premises thereafter right up until the date ot the decree, namely, September 6, 1951.
( 5 ) A suit was filed on November 29, 1949 claiming to eject the tenant-appellant. At that time the Rent Control Act of 1948 was in force and admittedly the tenant was a defaulter for three consecutive months or more and by reason of Section 12 (3) of that Act his tenancy had been 'ipso facto' determined.
( 6 ) DURING the pendency ot the suit the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1950 was passed which came into operation on March 31, 1950. Section 18 (5) of this latter Act made applicable certain provisions of the 1950 Act in so far as may be to suits pending at the date when the Act came into force.
( 7 ) BY a decision of this Court -- 's. B. Trading Co. Ltd. v. Satyendra Chandra Sen', 86 Cal. L. J. 46, a Bench of this Court held that Section 18 (5) of the West Bengal Rent Control Act, 1950 had no application to suits for ejectment based on the ground that the tenancy had been 'ipso facto' determined by failure to pay three months' consecutive rent as provided by Section 12 (3) of the Rent Control Act of 1948. The result of this decision was that a very large number of tenants against whom suits were pending were deprived of the relief contemplated in Section 18 (5) of the Rent Control Act of 1950.
( 8 ) TO remedy this the Legislature passed an amending Act--The West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1950 which came into force on November 30, 1950. By this amending statute the term "tenant" was amended and was re-defined as meaning"any person by whom rent is, or but for a special contract would be payable for any premises, and includes-- (i) any person who is liable to be sued by the landlord for rent; and (ii) any person whose interest in the premises has been 'ipso facto' determined under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948. "
( 9 ) THIS new definition was to be deemed always to have been substituted for the original definition in the 1950 Act.
( 10 ) SECTION 4 of this amending Act provided 'inter alia' for the amendment of Sub-section (5) of Section 18 and the words"on the ground of default in payment in such premises has been 'ipso facto' determined under the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 12" were substituted for the words "on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948. "
( 11 ) BY Section 5 of the Amending Act it was provided:"in all applications made under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act (meaning the 1950 Act) which are pending at the commencement of this Act and in all suits referred to in Sub-section (5) of the said section which are pending at such commencement, the said Act as amended by this Act shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied. "
( 12 ) AS I have stated earlier in the case of -- 's. B. Trading Co. , Ltd. v. S'atyendra Chandra Sen 86 Cal
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
