Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
RAMESH CH. BHATTACHARJEE - Appellant
Versus
NAGENDRA N. MULLICK - Respondent
Ordinary Original Suit 2823 Of 1949
Decided On : APRIL 21, 1950
RENT CONTROL - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - BUILDING AND REBUILDING - INTERPRETATION - WEST BENGAL PREMISES RENT CONTROL ACT, 1948, SECTION 11 - WEST BENGAL PREMISES RENT CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1950, SECTION 12 - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - NECESSARY INTENDMENT - BUILDING AND REBUILDING - MEANING AND SCOPE - TENANCY - TERMS AND PURPOSES - VIOLATION - SECTION 108 (M) AND 109 (O), TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - DAMAGE TO PREMISES - ASSESSMENT - NOTICE TO QUIT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Suit for recovery of ground floor of premises No. 88/2, Wellesley Street, Calcutta, from a monthly tenant, on the ground of bona fide requirement for the purposes of building and rebuilding and for the purposes of the occupation of the plaintiffs. The defendant pleaded that he had been working a printing press for several years with the knowledge and consent of the previous owners as well as of the plaintiffs. The written statement was amended to delete the admission of monthly tenancy and to introduce the case of a tenancy for the purpose of running a printing press.
Finding of the Court:
1. Section 12 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, is not retrospective in operation and applies only to the pending suit where a decree of ejectment could be made on the ground of default in the payment of arrears of rent. 2. The interpretation of a word used in the context of one statute cannot and should not be applied to the same word used in a different context in different statute passed for a different purpose. 3. The words 'building' and 'rebuilding' as used in the Rent Acts of 1948 and 1950 should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the purpose and context of the Acts. 4. Extensive repairs and fundamental in character, such as the reconstruction of the foundation and the rebuilding of cracked and moist walls, which cannot be carried out if the tenant remains in possession, constitute 'building' or 'rebuilding' within the meaning of the Rent Acts. 5. The defendant's tenancy was an ordinary monthly tenancy and not a lease for manufacturing purposes. 6. The defendant committed breach of the provisions of Section 108 (m) and 109 (o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by not keeping the property in good condition and by committing acts destructive or injurious to the property. 7. The defendant caused damage to the premises by running the printing press and by storing heavy barrels, which caused cracks and damaged the walls and floors. 8. The notice to quit dated 25/5/1949 was valid and effectively determined the defendant's tenancy.
Issues: 1. Do the plaintiffs bona fide and or reasonably require the premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding or for their own occupation? 2. (a) What are the terms and purposes of the defendant's tenancy? (b) Has he violated any of such terms? 3. Has the defendant caused damage to the premises in suit as alleged in paras. 4 and 5 of the plaint? If so, what is the nature and extent of such damage? 4. Has the tenancy of the defendant been validly determined by the notice dated 25-5-1949? 5. What relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The interpretation of a statute should be based on its language, context, and scheme, and a retrospective operation should not be given to a statute unless it is clear that such was the intention of the Legislature. 2. The words 'building' and 'rebuilding' in the Rent Acts of 1948 and 1950 should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the purpose and context of the Acts, and extensive repairs and fundamental in character, such as the reconstruction of the foundation and the rebuilding of cracked and moist walls, which cannot be carried out if the tenant remains in possession, constitute 'building' or 'rebuilding' within the meaning of the Acts. 3. A tenant is liable for breach of the provisions of Section 108 (m) and 109 (o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, if he fails to keep the property in good condition and commits acts destructive or injurious to the property.
Final Decision: Judgment for possession of the ground floor of premises 88/2, Wellesley Street, Calcutta, as claimed in prayer (a) of the plaint, mesne profits at the rate of rent from 1/7/1949 until delivery of possession, decree for damage for Rs. 4,000 as damages, and costs.
( 1 ) THIS is a suit by the pltfs. for the recovery of the ground floor of premises No. 88/2, Wellesley Street, Calcutta. The deft. is said to be a monthly tenant in the said ground floor at a rent of Rs. 135 p. m. whose tenancy was determined by a notice to quit given on 25-5-1949 by the pltfs. solicitors. The ground on which possession is claimed is bona fide requirement for the purposes of building and rebuilding and for the purposes of the occupation of the pltfs. There is also an allegation that the deft. in violation of the terms of the tenancy caused extensive damage to the said premises. The prayers in the plaint include claim for possession, mesne profits and damages to the extent of of Rs. 20,000. The suit was filed on 1-8-1949 when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1948 was in operation.
( 2 ) THE original written statement of the deft. pleads that he has been working a printing press for several years with the knowledge and consent of the previous owners as well as of the pltfs. It admits that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy. It also admits the notice to quit. In the written statement it is pleaded that cracks to the walls and damage to the floor are due to the failure and neglect of the owners, previous and present, to effect necessary repairs, notwithstanding repeated requests. The original written statement was filed on 19-9-1949. Then there was an appln. for amendment and an order was made on 21-3-1950 by my learned brother Sarkar J. The purpose of that amendment is to delete the admission of monthly tenancy and to introduce the case of a tenancy for the purpose of running a printing press. The idea was by the amendment to make out a case of a manufacturing tenancy so that the notice to quit could be questioned.
( 3 ) MR. B. C. Mitter appearing with Mr. S. Das for the deft. raised the following issues : (1) Do the pltfs. bona fide and or reasonably require the premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding or for their own occupation ? (2) (a) What are the terms and purposes of the deft's. tenancy ? (b) Has he violated any of such terms ? (3) Has the deft. caused damage to the premises in suit as alleged in paras. 4 and 5 of the plaint ? If so, what is the nature and extent of such damage ? (4) Has the tenancy of the deft. been validly. determined by the notice dated 25-5-1949 ? (5) What relief, if any, are the pltfs. entitled to ? mr. Meyer with Mr. S. P. Mitter, appearing for the pltf. had accepted those issues.
( 4 ) ISSUE 1--As the language in which issue 1 is framed will show the question at the outset is whether the old Rent Act of 1948 or the new Rent Act of 1950 will apply to the present proceedings. It is an important question because Section 11 of the Rent Act of 1948 has considerably been altered by Section 12 of the Act of 1950. Formerly a landlord who bona fide required the premises either for his own occupation or for the purposes of building or rebuilding could claim possession of his property and there was no question of hardship or disadvantage of the tenant. But now under the new Act, the Court has to consider comparative public benefit or disadvantage by extending or diminishing accommodation and the comparative advantage or disadvantage of the landlord or the tenant. I, therefore, propose to deal with this aspect of the issue first.
( 5 ) THE recent rent legislation of 1950 in various sections of the Act has specified different pending proceedings to which the Act will apply. In Sub-section 3 of Section 17 of the Act, it provides that if at the date when the Act comes into force proceedings for fixing standard rent are pending before the Controller or in appeal, the Controller or the Appellate Officer shall fix the standard rent in accordance with the provisions as laid down by this Act. Then again Sub-section 5 of Section 18 of the Act provides that if at the date when the Act comes into force a suit for ejectment of a tenant is pending, the Court s
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
