Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harries, Banerjee
NANDORANI DASSI - Appellant
Versus
SATYA NARAIN HARIT - Respondent
AFOO 78 Of 1950
Decided On : JUNE 29, 1950
WEST BENGAL PREMISES RENT CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 18 (1) - INTERPRETATION - DECREE FOR POSSESSION - DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was a tenant of the appellant in respect of rooms occupied as a shop and store room in premises known as No. 114/1 Cotton Street in Kolkata. In August of 1949 the appellant instituted a suit for ejectment of the tenant from these rooms and for recovery of arrears of rent, taxes, electricity charges etc. Sarkar J. held that the respondent had defaulted in the payment of rent for three consecutive months and therefore by reason of Section 12 (3), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, the respondent's interest in the premises had been ipso facto determined. He accordingly made a decree for possession of the said premises.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, which provides for reopening decrees for possession made in certain circumstances under the 1948 Rent Control Act, does not apply to decrees obtained against trespassers. The Court further held that a decree made against a person whose interest had been determined by reason of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the 1948 Act could never be described as a decree for ejectment of a tenant on the ground of default of payment of arrears of rent under the provisions of the 1948 Act.
Issues: Whether Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 applies to decrees obtained against trespassers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 does not apply to decrees obtained against trespassers. The Court reasoned that the decree in the present case was made against the respondent because he had lost all interest in the premises and had become a trespasser. The decree could not be said to have been made against him on the ground that he had failed to pay the arrears of rent. Once the rent for three consecutive months had not been paid the tenant could never save his interest thereafter by tendering payment or depositing the same in Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The order of Bachawat J. was set aside and the application was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order of Bachawat J. dated 9-5-1950 on an application under Section 18 (1), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1960.
( 2 ) THE application prayed that a decree for possession passed in a suit between the parties should be vacated, and that the petitioner should be granted leave to pay the arrears of rent due from him to the plaintiff appellant within a time to be fixed by the Court.
( 3 ) THE defendant-respondent was a tenant of the plaintiff-appellant in respect of rooms occupied as a shop and store room in premises known as No. 114/1 Cotton Street in this city. In August of 1949 the plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for ejectment of the tenant from these rooms and for recovery of arrears of rent, taxes, electricity charges etc. In the plaint the appellant alleged that the respondent had defaulted in the payment of rent for three consecutive months and therefore that the tenancy had ipso facto determined. There was a further allegation that the tenancy with regard to one room had been forfeited on account of certain breaches of covenant. In due course the suit came for hearing before Sarkar J. who held that the respondent had defaulted in the payment of rent for three consecutive months and therefore by reason of Section 12 (3), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, the respondent's interest in the premises had been ipso facto determined. He further held that no relief could be granted on the basis of forfeiture, but with that finding we are no longer concerned. He accordingly made a decree for pos-session of the said premises.
( 4 ) ON 31-3-1950, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, which for the purposes of convenience I shall refer to as the present Act, came into force. It purported to repeal the earlier Act of 1948.
( 5 ) IN the present Act provision is made for reopening decrees for possession made in certain circumstances under the 1948 Rent Control Act. The section which is relevant in this case is Section 18 of the present Act, Sub-section (1) of which is in these terms:"where any decree for recovery of possession of any premises has been made 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, but the possession of such premises has not been recovered from the tenant, the tenant may apply to the trial Court within sixty days of the coming into force of this Act for vacating the decree for ejectment against him and within such period no order for delivery of possession shall be made by any Court, nor if an application is made by the tenant under this sub-section till the application has been dismissed under Sub-section (4 ). "sub-section (2) of this section provides:"the Court shall, as early as may be, serve notice of the application on the landlord and after hearing the parties it the landlord appears, determine the amount of rent which would have been payable by the tenant and would be in arrears if the tenancy continued unbroken to and including the month in which the order stated hereafter is to be made, and order the tenant to pay the said amount as also the amount of interest on such arrears of rent calculated at the rate of nine and three-eighths per centum per annum together with such costs, if any, as may be adjudged to the landlord, within such time, not later than forty days from the date of the order, as the Court may fix. "
( 6 ) IT is then provided by Sub-sections (3) and (4) that if the tenant pays the sum calculated in the manner aforesaid within the time fixed the decree for ejectment shall be vacated and the tenancy is to continue as if it had never been terminated. On the other hand, if the tenant fails to make the payment within the time, allowed the application is to be dismissed.
( 7 ) BACHAWAT J. in the absence of Sarkar J. allowed the application of
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
