SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Cal) 219

High Court Of Calcutta
M. K. MUKHERJEE, SUDHANSHU SEKHAR GANGULY
SHIKHA DUTTA, PROSANTA KUMAR LAHIRI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CIV. REVI. JURI.  .   Of  .
Decided On : 05/31/1988

Advocates Appeared:
ANIMESH KANTI GHOSAL, SUDHIR DAS GUPTA

Municipal tax is not a part of rent unless the agreement between the parties expressly states that it is.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 17(2) AND (2A) - RENT - MUNICIPAL TAX - WHETHER MUNICIPAL TAX FORMS PART OF RENT - HELD, NO.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over the payment of arrear municipal taxes and arrear rents. The tenancy was governed by a written agreement, which provided that the tenant shall pay a monthly sum of Rs. 1,230 as rent and bear municipal taxes. The landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent and municipal taxes. The tenant filed an application under Sections 17 (2) and (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, seeking a determination of the rent payable by her.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the municipal tax was not a part of the rent agreed to be paid by the tenant. The court relied on the fact that the agreement between the parties expressly stated that the rent payable by the tenant was inclusive of the charges for the amenities provided by the landlord. The court also noted that the landlord had treated the municipal tax as independent of the tenant's rent liability in the plaint and the objection to the application under Section 17 (2) of the Act filed by the tenant.

Issues: 1. Whether municipal tax forms part of rent? 2. Whether the learned trial Court was justified in directing the petitioner to deposit the arrear municipal taxes?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the term 'rent' must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning to mean and include whatever was payable by the tenant to the landlord as a consideration for occupation of the tenanted premises. 2. The court held that the municipal tax was not a part of the rent agreed to be paid by the tenant because the agreement between the parties expressly stated that the rent payable by the tenant was inclusive of the charges for the amenities provided by the landlord.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned trial Judge so far as it directed the tenant to pay the arrear municipal taxes. The court also remanded the matter back to the learned Judge to arrive at the actual amount of arrear rents to be paid by the tenant in terms of the agreement.

MONOJ KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revisional applications are directed against Order No. 12, dated February 2, 1988 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 11 of 1987, disposing of an application filed under Sections 17 (2) and (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ('act' for short ). By the impugned order the learned Judge directed the tenant/defendant to pay arrear municipal taxes and arrear rents amounting to Rs. 17,920 and Rs. 4,380. respectively, together with interest thereon @ 81/2%, in ten equal monthly installments. One of these applications has been filed by the plaintiff/landlord whose grievance is that the calculation of arrear rents is wrong while the grievance of the defendant, who is the petitioner in the other revisional application, is that the learned Judge erred in directing her to pay arrear municipal taxes.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the tenancy is governed by a written agreement, dated September 25, l980. The agreement provident inter alia that the tenant shall pay a monthly sum of Rs. 1,230 as rent and bear municipal taxes. Another term of the agreement, which is relevant for our present purposes, is that 50% of the monthly rent payable, that is to say, Rs. 650 is to be adjusted against the sum of Rs. 85,000 which was advanced by the tenant td the land-lord.

( 3 ) RELYING upon the provisions of the agreement Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the application filed by the tenant, submitted that she (the tenant) agreed to pay only Rs. 1,230 as rent and consequently the learned fudge could not have directed her to pay municipal tax, which was not part of agreed 'rent', while disposing of the application under Sections 17 (2) and (2a) of the Act. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury the liabiliity of the tenant to pay municipal tax under the agreement was not a rent liability and consequently she was not obligated to pay, the same as a part of the rent. The other contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury was that since municipal tax was a variable, and not a fixed, sum it could not legally form part of rent. In support of his above contentions Mr. Roy Chowdhury principally relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chhotelal vs. Kewal Krishan reported in A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 987

( 4 ) IN repelling the above contentions of Mr. Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Dasgupta appearing for the landlord, submitted that in absence of any definition of 'rent' in the Act it must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning to mean and include whatever was payable by the tenant to the landlord as a consideration for occupation of the tenanted premises. Consequently, when admittedly municipal tax was to be paid by the tenant to the landlord it must be treated as a component of rent. Mr. Das Gupta further submitted that municipal tax being an ascertainable sum could always be a part of rent. To bring home his contentions Mr. Das Gupta relied upon some English authorities and decisions, as also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd. vs. Miss Augustine, reported in A. I,r. 1957 S. C. 309 and in the case of K. Dayalji and Co, vs. Mohammadbhai, reported in A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 102. Before we proceed to consider the decisions cited at the Bar we may 'refer' to the relevant provisions of the Act.

( 5 ) SECTION 4 of the Act provides, inter alia, that a tenant shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, pay to the landlord the rent agreed upon until fair rent is fixed. Section 17 (1) of the Act enjoins that on a-suit for eviction being instituted on any of the grounds referred to in Section 18 the tenant shall, within a month of the service of the writ of summons or within a month of his appearance, deposit in Court an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period he may have been in default together with interest @ 8-1/3 % and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay month by m









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top