Judgment. - This is a suit by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of premises No. 7/3 a, Gopal Chandra Lane, Calcutta, for the sum of Rs. 318-12-0 as rent in arrears, profits at the rate of Rs. 3-9-0 per day from 1-8-1949 until possession and interest and costs. The suit was filed on 31-8-1949. At the time when the suit was filed the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948 was in force.

2. The claim in the suit proceeds on the basis that the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the said premises at a rent of Rs. 106-4-0 per month. It is said that the defendant failed and neglected to pay or deposit rent of the said premises for the months of May, June and July 1949, and, therefore, by reason of S. 12 (3) of Act of 1948 the tenancy came to an end ipso facto.

3. The written statement in this suit was filed on 13-12-1949, and the main defence is that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to excuse or waive the defaults on the ground of settling a higher rent.

4. Mr. A. S. Huq learned counsel appearing for the defendant, raises the issue that the defendant is entitled to the relief under S. 18 (5), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950.

5. It is to be understood that Mr. Huq abandons the plea taken in Para. 3 of the written statement and he does not raise any issue as to whether there was any agreement to excuse or waive the default as pleaded in Para. 2 of the written statement of the defendant. Mr. Huq admits the allegations in the plaint and no evidence, therefore, has been given in this case.

6. Mr. Huq also does not take any point under S. 16 of the Rent Act of 1950 to challenge the jurisdiction of this Court. He has only confined himself to a claim for relief under S. 18 (5) of the new Act of 1950.

7. His submission is that sub-s. (5) of s. 18 of the Act of 1950 applies to pending cases such as the one before me. His initial difficulty lies in the question whether this suit is a "suit for ejectment of a tenant," within the meaning of sub-s. (5) because it is that class of suit to which this sub-section applies if the suit happens to be pending. Before s. 18 (5) can apply to this suit the first condition to be satisfied is that the suit must be "for ejectment of a tenant."

8. Section 2 (11) of the new Act of 1950 defines a tenant as the person by whom rent is or but for a special contract would be payable and includes any person who is liable to be sued by landlord for rent. Mr. Huq contends that the defendant is a tenant by reason of the expression "any person who is liable to be sued by landlord for rant." It is necessary to examine therefore whether the defendant in this case answers the legal definition of a tenant. The definitions of "landlord" and "tenant" under the Act of 1950 are much narrower than those in the old Act of 1948. "Rent" is the only test provided by the new definitions of landlord and tenant under the Act of 1950. It is necessary to emphasise in that context that "rent" is a word of limited and technical import and connotation and cannot include mesne profits or damages payable by a trespasser or a tenant whose tenancy has terminated. The Legislature has made a conscious and deliberate departure from the old statute of 1948 which expressly included within the definition of a tenant a person whose tenancy had expired. Not to include such a person now means that the present Act does not intend to bring such a person within the meaning of the new Act of 1950. It is, therefore, not possible in my view under the Act of 1950 to include an ex-tenant as a tenant as for instance was done by the Privy Council in Kirnani Industrial Bank Ltd. v. Satya Niranjan, 32 C. W. N. 1093 : (a.i.R. (15) 1928 P.C. 227) under the old Calcutta Rent Act of 1920, where the definition of a tenant though not exactly in similar terms with the present Act of 1950 was narrow enough. In my opinion it is a rule of construction of a statute w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document