1950 Supreme(Cal) 74

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
BOSE, J.
Amar Nath Misra
Versus
Sreenarain Mansingka
Original Suit No. 1650 of 1949
Decided On : 02-05-1950

The jurisdiction of the High Court to try and give relief in suits by landlords against tenants for recovery of possession pending in the High Court on the date when the new Rent Control Act of 1950 came into force remains unaffected.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL ACT - JURISDICTION - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - STAY OF SUIT - PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF RENT - INTEREST - DEFAULT - EVICTION - SUB-LETTING - NOTICE TO QUIT - MESNE PROFITS - COSTS.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a lessee, sued the defendant, a monthly tenant, for recovery of possession of premises, arrears of rent, mesne profits, and other reliefs. The defendant claimed protection under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, and deposited arrears of rent and interest in court. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had not complied with the requirements of the Act and was not entitled to the benefit of the stay of suit provision.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the new Rent Control Act of 1950 did not have retrospective operation and did not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to try and give relief in suits by landlords against tenants for recovery of possession pending in the High Court on the date when the new Act came into force. The court further held that the defendant had not complied with the requirements of Section 12(2) of the Rent Act, 1948, and was not entitled to the benefit of that section. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of protection against eviction afforded by Section 14 of the new Act, as he had committed default of the nature contemplated by the proviso to that section.

Issues: 1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Whether the suit should be stayed under the provisions of Section 12(2), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948. 3. Whether the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent as alleged in the plaint. 4. Whether the defendant had sublet a major portion of the premises in suit for more than six consecutive months. 5. Whether the defendant's tenancy had been validly determined by notice to quit dated 23-3-1949. 6. To what reliefs, if any, was the plaintiff entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A statute is prima facie prospective and does not interfere with existing rights unless it contains express words or there is the plainest implication to that effect. 2. The repeal of an enactment does not affect the previous operation of the enactment or anything duly done thereunder, or any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the enactment. 3. A tenant can avail himself of the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Rent Act, 1948, even if he did not comply with clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 12(1). 4. The obligation of a tenant under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act, 1948, to pay arrears of rent and interest through court within a period of one month means that the money must be paid or lodged into court in sufficient time so as to reach the hands of the landlord within the prescribed period. 5. A tenant who commits default of the nature contemplated by the proviso to Section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, is not entitled to the benefit of protection against eviction afforded by that section.

Final Decision: The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for possession of the premises and for mesne profits from 1st Baisakh 1357 B.S. at the rate of Rs. 285 p.m. till possession is delivered. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the general costs of the suit and half the cost of hearing before the court, as well as all reserved costs if any on scale No. 2. The execution of the decree was stayed for a month after the drawing up of the decree.