Back
High Court Of Calcutta
M. M. Dutt, Monoj Kumar Mukherjee
REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD - Appellant
Versus
SOHANLAL RAJGHARIA - Respondent
Appeal from Original Decree No. 168 of 1978
Decided On : 05/20/1983
{'KEYWORD': 'WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956', 'SUBJECT': 'Determination of Rent Payable by Tenant', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['SECTION 17 (2)'], 'SUMMARY': "The court's determination under Section 17 (2) is limited to fixing the contractual rent, not the 'fair rent' defined under Section 8 of the Act. The court must consider the provisions of the Act, including Section 8(1)(e), when determining the contractual rent, which is the prevailing market rent. However, the court is not bound to apply the proviso to Section 8(1)(e), which limits rent increases to 10% of the existing rent, as this would effectively require the court to determine fair rent, which is beyond its jurisdiction under Section 17 (2)."}
Fact of the Case:
The defendant, Remington Rand of India Ltd., initially leased a two-storied building from the plaintiffs for 16 years. After the lease expired, the parties entered into a new agreement where the defendant would continue to occupy the ground floor as a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs. 3,200/- per month. The agreement stipulated that the tenancy would stand determined on March 31, 1972, and if the defendant continued to occupy the premises thereafter, it would pay the prevailing market rent. The defendant did not vacate the premises and failed to pay rent at the prevailing market rate, leading to the plaintiffs filing an eviction suit and an application under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 to determine the rent payable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the new tenancy at the prevailing market rent was not void for uncertainty since the prevailing market rent was ascertainable. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the new tenancy was merely an alteration of the old tenancy, as the agreement clearly created a new tenancy with a different rent. The court further determined that under Section 17 (2), the court's role is to determine the contractual rent, not the fair rent, and that the court must consider the provisions of the Act, including Section 8(1)(e), when determining the contractual rent. However, the court is not bound to apply the proviso to Section 8(1)(e), which limits rent increases to 10% of the existing rent, as this would effectively require the court to determine fair rent, which is beyond its jurisdiction under Section 17 (2).
Issues: ['Whether the new tenancy at the prevailing market rent was void for uncertainty.', 'Whether the new tenancy was merely an alteration of the old tenancy.', "Whether the court under Section 17 (2) determines the contractual rent or the 'fair rent' within the meaning of Section 8 of the Act.", 'Whether the court is bound to apply the proviso to Section 8(1)(e) when determining the contractual rent under Section 17 (2).']
Ratio Decidendi: The court's determination under Section 17 (2) is limited to fixing the contractual rent, not the 'fair rent' defined under Section 8 of the Act. The court must consider the provisions of the Act, including Section 8(1)(e), when determining the contractual rent, which is the prevailing market rent. However, the court is not bound to apply the proviso to Section 8(1)(e), which limits rent increases to 10% of the existing rent, as this would effectively require the court to determine fair rent, which is beyond its jurisdiction under Section 17 (2).
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the lower court's order fixing the contractual rent at Rs. 10,000/- per month.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for eviction, and it is directed against the judgment and order dt. April 21. 1978 of B. C. Basak. J passed on the implication of the defendant under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956. hereinafter referred to as the Act.
( 2 ) THE defendant. Remington Rand of India Ltd. , was initially a lessee of a two storied building being premises No. 5/a, Mangoe Lane. Calcutta for a term of 16 years under the plaintiff under a registered deed of lease dt. May 1. 1953. After the expiry of the lease, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into an agreement referred to in the letter dt. December. 4. 1970 addressed by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The relevant portions of the said letter recording the agreement between the parties are as follows:--" (a) We have on 1st Dec. 1970 put you in vacant possession of the 1st floor of the premises No. 5/a. Mangoe Lane, Calcutta. (b) We shall continue to be in occupation of the ground floor of the above premises as monthly tenant under you on the terms and conditions in the lease dated 14th Sept. 1953. granted by you to us in so far as the same shall be applicable to such monthly tenancy except that our monthly rent for the said entire ground floor shall be Rs. 3,200/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Two Hundred only) per month with effect from 1st Dec. 1970. and all common spaces and land spaces in the ground floor will be used by us in common with you and other occupants of the aforesaid premises and we will not be entitled to obstruct and/or block the same in any circumstances whatsoever. (c) We will put you in quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the said ground floor mentioned in Clause (b) hereof within 31st Mar. 1978. Please also note that our tenancy under you in respect of the ground floor will in any event stand determined with the expiry of 31st Mar. 1972. In the event the Company does not vacate the ground floor of the said premises by 1st April. 1972. it shall commence paying the then prevalent market rent. "
( 3 ) IT appears from the agreement between the parties as recorded in the letter quoted above that the defendant vacated the first floor of the said premises No. 5/a. Mangoe Lane. Calcutta and continued to occupy the ground floor of the said premises as a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 3,200/- with effect from Dec. 1, 1970. It was also agreed that the tenancy of the defendant with regard to the ground floor would stand determined on the expiry of Mar. 31, 1972. and that in the event the defendant did not vacate the ground floor by April 1, 1972. it would have to pay the prevalent market rent. The parties, however did not decide what the prevalent market rent was. The defendant did not pay tent at the old rate, that is at the rate of Rs. 3,200/- per month, the reason being that the prevalent market rent was not decided. It appears from the letter dated Aug. 26, 1974 addressed by the defendant to the plaintiffs that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs on July 12, 1972 towards arrears of rent. In the said letter, the defendant called upon the plaintiffs to ascertain the market rate of rent of similar tenancies within seven days from the receipt of the letter, failing which, it was stated, the defendant would be constrained to move the Rent Controller in Accordance with law for fixing the rent payable by it. Thereafter, on Sept. 7, 1976 the plaintiffs instituted the suit being Suit No. 369 of 1976 in the Original Side of this Court praying for a decree for eviction of the defendant from and recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises, being the ground floor of the said premises no. 5/a. Mangoe Lane. Culcutta, on the ground of default in payment of rent. It was alleged that the defendant had paid rent at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month being the prevalent market rent for the month of April, 1972, bu
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
