Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, GUHA RAY
PROFULLA CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
PRABARTAK TRUST - Respondent
Civil Revn. 3004 Of 1951
Decided On : MAY 30, 1952
RENT CONTROL ACT - RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES - INTERPRETATION - RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY: 1. The expression "residential purposes" in the Rent Control Act of 1950 includes purposes of being used as a charitable institution. However, the user must be for a "charitable" purpose in the strict or narrower sense of that term and not in the broader sense of including purposes which are not by themselves charitable but are, in some way, connected with charity and/or a charitable institution. 2. The doctrine of res judicata bars the trial of an issue, previously decided. In essence, the rule postulates a previous decision or adjudication and a recurrence of the matter of issue, there or then adjudicated or decided. It is the decision or adjudication which operates as res judicata and, for the success of this plea in bar, it is essential that the point, now arising for determination, has already been decided in the previous proceeding, either expressly or by necessary implication. 3. The decision and not the reasoning of the Court operates as res judicata. Therefore, the interpretation of the definition of the expression "residential purposes" in the proceeding for standardisation of rent under the 1948 Act would not be res judicata in the present proceeding under the 1950 Act and would not preclude consideration of the question whether the user of the disputed premises is for "residential purposes" under the 1950 Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Prafulla Chandra Bhar, is the landlord, and the opposite party, Messrs. Prabartak Trust, is the tenant in respect of premises No. 61 Bowbazar Street in the town of Calcutta. In December 1941, the rent of the said premises was Rs. 327/- p.m., which was subsequently raised by agreement to Rs. 400/- p.m. in July 1945. In May 1949, the landlord applied for standardisation of rent under the Rent Control Act of 1948, and on 19-7-49, the standard rent was fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 444/3/9 p.m. In May 1950, the tenant applied for refixation of the standard rent under Section 17 (2) of the Rent Control Act, 1950. The Rent Controller refixed the standard rent at Rs. 413-10-6p. p.m. with effect from June 1950. Both parties appealed, and the Appellate Judge affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller except on one point, namely, the nature or character of the purposes of user of the premises. He held that the user was for "residential purposes" within the meaning of the Explanations to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule A of the Rent Control Act of 1950 and refixed the standard rent at Rs. 359-10-3p. p.m.
Finding of the Court:
1. The expression "residential purposes" in the Rent Control Act of 1950 includes purposes of being used as a charitable institution, but the user must be for a "charitable" purpose in the strict or narrower sense of that term. 2. The doctrine of res judicata bars the trial of an issue, previously decided. It is the decision or adjudication which operates as res judicata, and the interpretation of the definition of the expression "residential purposes" in the proceeding for standardisation of rent under the 1948 Act would not be res judicata in the present proceeding under the 1950 Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the user of the disputed premises is for "residential purposes" within the meaning of the Explanations to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule A of the Rent Control Act of 1950? 2. Whether the plea of res judicata raised by the tenant is applicable in the present proceeding?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "residential purposes" in the Rent Control Act of 1950 includes purposes of being used as a charitable institution, but the user must be for a "charitable" purpose in the strict or narrower sense of that term. The user of the disputed premises for the purpose of carrying on business is not for "residential purposes" but is "otherwise than for residential purposes" within the meaning of the relevant statute. 2. The doctrine of res judicata bars the trial of an issue, previously decided. It is the decision or adjudication which operates as res judicata, and the interpretation of the definition of the expression "residential purposes" in the proceeding for standardisation of rent under the 1948 Act would not be res judicata in the present proceeding under the 1950 Act.
Final Decision: The Rule is made absolute. The order of the learned Appellate Judge is set aside, and that of the Rent Controller is restored. The standard rent is fixed or refixed at Rs. 359/11/3 plus 15 per cent.: Rs. 413/10/6, p.m., as found by the Rent Controller.
( 1 ) THIS Rule raises two important questions -- one relating to the proper meaning of the word "as", appearing in the Explanations to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Schedule A of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, where the expression "residential purposes" is defined for purposes of the said Paragraphs, the other involving consideration of the applicability of the doctrine of 'res judicata' in relation to proceedings for refixation of 'standard' rent under the Rent Control Act of 1950 by reason of a previous decision in a proceeding for standardisation of rent under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948.
( 2 ) THE material facts are not in dispute and they are as follows:
( 3 ) THE petitioner Prafulla Chandra Bhar is the landlord and the opposite party, Messrs. Prabartak Trust, the tenant in respect of premises No. 61 Bowbazar Street in the town of Calcutta. In December 1941, the rent of the said premises was Rs. 327/- p. m. and this was subsequently raised by agreement to Rs. 400/- p. m. in July, 1945. In May, 1949, the landlord applied for standardisation of rent under the Rent Control Act of 1948 and, on 19-7-49, the standard rent was fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 444/3/9 p. m. on the following basis, viz. , : (a) The rent of December, 1941, being Rs. 327/- p. m. the 'basic rent' would be Rs. 327-: plus 10 per cent. : Rs. 359-11-3 p. m. (b) The tenant being a charitable institution, its user of the premises in question was for charitable purposes and was thus for 'residential purposes' within the meaning of paragraph (2) of Schedule A of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, by reason of the Explanation appended thereto. The landlord was, therefore, entitled under the said 1948 Act to an increment of 20 per cent, over the basic rent, i. e. to a rental of Rs. 359-11-3p plus 20 per cent. : Rs. 431-10-2p. p. m. and (c) The landlord was also entitled to a further sum of Rs. 12-9-7p p. m. on account of increment of municipal taxes, the standard rent being thus the consolidated figure of Rs. 431-10-2p plus Rs. 12-9-7p: Rs. 444-3-9 P. M.
( 4 ) ON the above basis, the standard rent was fixed in the said proceeding at Rs. 444-3-9p. p. m. with effect from April, 1949.
( 5 ) IN May 1950, the tenant, Messrs. Prabartak Trust, applied under the Rent Control Act, 1950 for refixation of the standard rent under Section 17 (2) thereof. The Rent Controller by his order, dated 8-7-50, refixed the standard rent at Rs. 413-10-6p. p. m. with effect front June, 1950, on the following findings, viz. ,: (a) that the rent of December, 1941, was Rs. 327/- p. m. and this rent though it might have been 'unduly low'--and this was irrelevant under the 1950 Act -- was not 'nominal'; (b) that the 'basic rent' would, therefore, be Rs. 327/- p. m. plus 10 per cent, plus Rs. 359-11-3p p. m. (c) that, although the premises were used by a charitable institution, they were actually used for carrying on business, and, as such, for non-residential purposes -- or, to quote the language of the statute, "otherwise than for residential purposes" -- and, therefore, under paragraph 3 (b) of Schedule A of the Rent Control Act of 1950, the landlord was entitled to 15 per cent over and above the 'basic rent', as the increased rent of Rs. 400/- p. m. was first paid in July, 1945, from which a period of three years had elapsed.
( 6 ) THE standard rent was thus fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 359-11-3p plus 15 per cent. : Rs. 413-10-6p p. m. and it was given effect, as already stated, from June 1950.
( 7 ) BOTH parties appealed and the learned Appellate Judge affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller except on one point, namely as to the nature or character of the purposes of user of the premises and he held that, as the user was by a charitable institution, such user must be construed to be user for 'residential purposes" within the meani
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
