High Court Of Calcutta
Anandamoy Bhattacharjee & A.K.Nayak, JJ.
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd
Vs.
Kohinoor Debi
Decided On : Dec 01, 1988
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT - SECTION 3 - LEASE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS - EXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS OF THE ACT - LEASE DETERMINABLE AT THE OPTION OF THE TENANT - WHETHER EXEMPTED.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over whether the demised premises were held under a lease for more than 20 years, thereby exempting it from the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The lease in question was for a period of 21 years, but it was contended that the lease was replaced by new leases in 1971 and 1977, resulting in shorter lease periods. The court found that the parties did not intend to replace the existing lease with new ones and that the variations in rent and other terms did not result in the creation of new leases.
Issues: 1. Whether the lease in question was for more than 20 years, thereby exempting it from the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956? 2. Whether the variations in rent and other terms resulted in the creation of new leases?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A lease for a fixed term remains a lease for that period, even if the lessee has the right or option to terminate it earlier. 2. The provisions of section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which exempts leases for more than 20 years from the provisions of the Act, do not require that the lease be not terminable before its expiration at the option of the tenant.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the decree granted by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court was affirmed.
1. SECTION 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as it stood before the Amendment of 1965, rendered the provisions of the Act inapplicable to any premises held under a lease for more than 20 years whether the purpose of the lease was residential or non-residential. By the Amendment Act of 1965, this section 3 has been retained and renumbered a sub-section (1) of section 3, but a new sub-section (2) has been added to deal specifically with lease entered into after the commencement of the Ordinance on an from 24/8/1965, which preceded the Amendment Act of 1965, rendering section 3 (1) inapplicable to all leases entered into after that date. Sub-section (2), so inserted, now provides that all leases entered into after 24//65 would not be exempted from, but would be governed by, the provisions of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956 except a lease for "a period of not less than 20 years" provided the same is "not expressed to be terminable before its expiration at the option either of the landlord or of the tenant", in which case such as lease would be governed only by the provisions relating to rents and the provisions of sections 31 and 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act providing of penalty for disturbances of easement etc., and for the tenant's getting supply of electricity even without the consent of the landlord, but by no other provisions of that act. This sub section (2), therefore, has introduced no change in the law in respect of leases entered into before 24/8/65, which are still governed by section 3 as it stood, and section 3 (1), as it now stands, where under nothing in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act shall apply to "any premises held under a lease" for more than 20 years. The only question involved in this second appeal is as to whether the demised premises were held under such a lease, namely, a lease entered into before the commencement of the Amandment of 1965 on 24/8/65 and was for more than 20 years. An affirmative answer would warrant dismissal passed by the trial Court against the tenant appellant in favour of the landlord-respondent and affirmed by the first Appellate Court, while a negative answer would require us to reverse that decree and the judgments of both the Courts below. We have decided to return an affirmative answer and to dismiss the appeal.
2. THE disputed lease was admittedly entered into by a. registered indenture being Exhibit 1, dated 11/4/60 and was palpably "for the term of 21 years certain, commencing an and from the 15th day of December, in the year 1959 and expiring with the expiry of the 4th day of December, 1980". Some terms (not the term) and conditions of this lease, Exhibit 1, were no doubt varied by two subsequent registered instruments, being exhibit 1 (a) dated 5/2/71 and Exhibit 1 (b) dated 7/9/77, but these variations related only to the amount payable as rent for the premises, fittings and fixtures and the Municipal taxes. And in both these two instruments, Exhibit 1 (a) and Exhibit 1 (b), the parties clearly averred, may be ex-majori cautela, that to quote from Exhibit 1 (b), clause 5] "subject to the said variation, the Principal Deed shall remain in full force and effect and shall be read and construed and be enforceable as if the terms of these presents were inserted therein by way of addition or substitution, as the case may be". We accordingly thought that, notwithstanding these variations as aforesaid, the lease under which the demised premises were held, remained and continued to remain a lease for 21 years and as such the demised premises were not to be governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956, because of section 3 (1) thereof. We thought that to be the plain meaning of these plain English words.
But eminent Counsels on both sides took a good number of days to make us understand as to what was the term or the period of the lease, notwithstanding the clear declaration in Exhibit 1 that it was mean
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.