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

1976 Supreme(Cal) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.
Rajani Kanto alias Madhusudan Ghose ......Petitioner
Versus
Sm. Nilima Dutta & Anr. .....Opposite Parties
Civil Revision case no. 980 of 1976

Advocates Appeared:
Hrishikesh Ganguly ...for the petitioner
Saktinath Mukherjee and Miss Suniti Sen Gupta ...for the opposite parties

The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 does not extend to notified areas, even though some provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act are extended to notified areas.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - EXTENT OF ACT - SECTION 1(3) - ACT EXTENDS TO AREAS CONSTITUTED AS MUNICIPALITIES UNDER BENGAL MUNICIPAL ACT, 1932 - NOTIFIED AREA NOT EQUIVALENT TO MUNICIPALITY - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT NOT EXTENDED TO NOTIFIED AREA.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed an application under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, claiming that the Act extended to Sainthia, where the premises in question were located. The Munsif rejected the application on the ground that Sainthia was not a municipality constituted under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 did not extend to Sainthia because it was not a municipality constituted under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The court found that Sainthia was a notified area constituted under Section 93A of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, but that this was not equivalent to being a municipality.

Issues: Whether the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 extended to Sainthia, which was a notified area but not a municipality.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 1(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which provides that the Act extends to areas constituted as municipalities under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The court held that the Act did not extend to notified areas, even though some provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act were extended to notified areas by Section 93C of the Act.

Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff opposite party has brought a suit for eviction against the defendant petitioner in the Sadar Munsif's court at Suri in respect of a premises situated at Sainthia, district Birbhum. The defendant petitioner after entering appearance in the aforesaid eviction suit brought by the opposite party filed a petitioner under section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The learned Munsif, Suri, has rejected the said application under section 17(2) filed by the present petitioner on the ground that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act., 1956 does not extend to Sainthia Mouza as the same has not been constituted as a municipality under the provisions of the Benal Municipal Act, 1932. The petitioner obtained the present Rule against the said order.

2. Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted before me that Sainthia mouza has been admittedly declared to be a notified area by a notification under section 93A of the Bengal Municipal Act 1932. According to Mr. Ganguly the said area must be deemed to be within a municipality under Section 93C(2). Mr. Ganguly has submitted that the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act therefore extend to Sainthia.

3. Having given my anxious consideration to the matter, I am unable to uphold the above submission of Mr. Ganguly. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 gives the extent of the said Act. Thus, it “extends to the whole of Calcutta and to al areas which have been or may hereafter be constituted municipalities under the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 : Provided…”. Part II, Ch. II, of the Bengal Municipal Act 1932 deals with the creation of municipalities. Section 6(1) inter alia provides for issue of notification by the State Government declaring its intention to constitute any town…a municipality or to abolish or alter limits of a municipality. Section 7 deals with consideration of objection. Section 8 confers powers upon the State Government to constitute, abolish or alter limits of a municipality by publication of notification. It is not disputed that in the instant case the State Government did not declare under section 6 its intention to constitute Sainthia a municipality and the said area under Section 8 has not been constituted a Municipality. But the State Government constituted Sainthia as a notified area under section 93A. Such constitution of a notified area is not equivalent to the constitution of a municipality under section 8 of the Act. Thus the Bengal Municipal Act creates a different procedure for constitution of notified areas. Sec. 93A(1)(i) itself provides that a notified area may be constituted in respect of any area which does not fulfil the conditions for being constituted a municipality under this Act.’ The State Government has been given power to constitute newly developing towns and areas in which new industries have been or are being established as notified areas. Section 93D(i) empowers the State government to convert a notified area into a municipality. Section 93 E contains consequential provisions in case of such conversion of a notified area into a full-fledged municipality. Section 93C provides for the consequences of the application of the Bengal Municipal Act to a notified area. The expression “…operate as if the notified area were a municipality were vested in the notified area Authority” are in the nature of deeming provisions and they also establish that except for such deeming provisions a notified area is not one and the same as a municipality constituted under section 8. I am not prepared to extend legal fiction in section 93C (2) except to the extent provided in the statute itself. When the statute clearly expresses an intention to treat a notified area as a municipality only to a limited extend the petitioner cannot contend that Sainthia has been constituted into a Municipality and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has been extended to S



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