Back
High Court Of Calcutta
KALYANMOY GANGULI
J.L.BOSE - Appellant
Versus
ATINDRA MOHAN BHATTACHARJEE - Respondent
C. O. 1740 Of 1988
Decided On : 06/06/1989
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - S. 29-B - Eviction of tenants - Interpretation of the provisions of Chapter VI-A - Protection of tenants against eviction - Conclusive evidence of certificate issued by Military Authority - Quantum of requirement of landlord.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Brigadier in the Indian Army, filed an application before the Rent Controller, Calcutta, for eviction of his tenants from the disputed premises under S. 29-B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Rent Controller passed an order in favor of the respondent, and the tenants challenged the order under Art. 227 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Rent Controller erred in relying on the certificate issued by the Military Authority as conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, including the quantum of requirement of the landlord. The court also held that the Rent Controller failed to consider the provisions of S. 13 (4) of the Act, which requires the landlord to show that he requires the entire premises for his own use and occupation.
Issues: 1. Whether the certificate issued by the Military Authority under S. 29-B (2) (c) of the Act is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, including the quantum of requirement of the landlord? 2. Whether the Rent Controller is required to consider the provisions of S. 13 (4) of the Act, which requires the landlord to show that he requires the entire premises for his own use and occupation, even when the certificate issued by the Military Authority is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The certificate issued by the Military Authority under S. 29-B (2) (c) of the Act is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, but not conclusive so far as the facts which are not stated therein. The Rent Controller cannot rely on the certificate to determine the quantum of requirement of the landlord. 2. The Rent Controller is required to consider the provisions of S. 13 (4) of the Act, which requires the landlord to show that he requires the entire premises for his own use and occupation, even when the certificate issued by the Military Authority is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Rent Controller and allowed the petition filed by the tenants.
( 1 ) IN this application under Art. 227 of the Constitution an order passed on 7th June, 1988 by the Additional Rent Controller in Rent Control Eviction Case No. 3 of 1984 EVC has been challenged.
( 2 ) THE impugned order arises out of an application filed by the respondent under S. 29-B, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956, hereinafter referred to as the said Act for recovery of khas possession of the premises mentioned in the said application.
( 3 ) THE case was hotly contested by both the parties both before the Additional Rent Controller and before this Court. Numerous decisions were cited at the Bar in support of the conflicting claims of the parties.
( 4 ) BEFORE entering into the merits of the case and dealing with the respective contentions made by the parties it is necessary to recapitulate and rethink about the historical background and the perspective in which the Rent Restriction Acts in general were enacted in various countries at various points of time. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 is not a pioneer in the field but is one of the youngest member of the family of the legislations dealing with the subject.
( 5 ) LAWS controlling rents have a longer history and more widespread operation than is normally thought of. One of the earliest laws was an edict of Pope Faul II in 1470; and from the bull vian veritatis of Pope claimant VIII in 1604 sprang the far reaching jus gazaga. By the end of the war by 1914-18 many countries had enacted provisions controlling rent and by 1950 some 150 constries had adopted such laws.
( 6 ) THE Acts, basically passed through 13 distinct periods of initial development, full control, gradual decontrol etc. some phases were recycled depending upon the transient thoughts of particular political parties at different periods of time.
( 7 ) THE enactments are bewildoring and more confusions than clarity have resulted from the multiplicity of enactment.
( 8 ) HOWEVER, the guiding light through the darkness of the Rent Acts is to remember that they confer personal security on a tenant in respect of his home (Feyereisel v. Turnide), (1952) 2 QB 29 at 37. The rules of formal logic must not be applied to the Acts with two great strictness (Baker v. Terner) (1950) AC 401 at 415.
( 9 ) THE main objects of the Rent Restriction Acts are to give tenants "fair Rent" and a status of irremovability (Ebner v. Lascelles), (1928) 97/ LJKB 497 at 500.
( 10 ) IN deciding any case under any of the Rent Restriction Acts including the West Bengal Act in question has constantly to remember that the protection given to a tenant as regards his irremovability is not rendered illusory.
( 11 ) THE Rent Restriction Acts through the ages have been framed with the aforesaid objects and this being a social welfare legislation and a remedial statute, provisions must be interpreted, as far as practicable, in favour of the tenant. Although the 1956 Act and for the matter of that Acts preceding the said Act have definitely made provisions in favour of the landlords enabling them to evict the tenants under certain circumstances, yet those circumstances are to be examined very carefully. Unless this is done, the very purpose of such enactments would be frustrated.
( 12 ) IT is against this historical backdrop that all decisions are to be made relating to eviction of a tenant.
( 13 ) IN the scheme of the said Act adequate provisions have been made for the eviction of tenants on the grounds specified in S. 13 of the said Act. Although the section heading speaks of the protection of tenants against eviction. In interpreting S. 13, the basic thing to remember is that the tenant cannot be evicted excepting under the circumstances mentioned in the different clauses of S. 13 (1 ). Similarly, the legislators in their wisdom have thought it fit to make the special provisions in S. 29-B of the said Act to pave the way for a certain specified class of landlords to get an eviction of their tenan
AI
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
