A landlord who seeks eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 cannot be compelled to stay the eviction suit merely because the quantum of rent has increased in the interregnum, as long as the parties have not given effect to the order of enhanced rent by payment and receipt of rent at such rate.

Sanjib Banerjee, J.

The petitioner herein is the defendant in a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.

2. Prior to the institution of the suit, the landlord approached the rent controller on the basis of judgment law as now holding the field for increase of the rent. The rent controller required the quantum of rent to be increased and such decision has been challenged before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal by the tenant.

3. The tenant contends that if the rent is increased in accordance with the direction of the rent controller, the tenancy will go beyond the pale of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and the parties will be governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

4. The petitioning tenant had applied before the trial court for the stay of the present suit till such time that the rent dispute is finally adjudicated by the Tribunal. The stay has been declined by the order impugned dated May 5, 2014. The petitioner says that it is desirable that the eviction suit is stayed in such circumstances and relies on a judgment reported at AIR 1982 SC 83 for such purpose.

5. In the reported case, the trial court and the High Court had declined to stay the suit, but the Supreme Court reversed the orders with a corresponding direction on the rent controller to dispose of the application for fixation of fair rent within a specified time. The issue in that case was whether the parties to the suit were governed by the Rent Control Act or not and the final outcome of the application for fixation of fair rent would have conclusively answered as to which statute would govern the parties.

6. The situation is somewhat different in the present case. The landlord has sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement. It goes without saying that it is much more difficult for a landlord to obtain the eviction of a tenant enjoying the protection of the rent control laws than the eviction of a tenant or lessee governed by the Transfer of Property Act. Section 6 of the 1997 Act permits eviction of tenants enjoying the benefit of the statute, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. One of the grounds is of reasonable requirement of the landlord to obtain possession of the tenanted premises. There is no corresponding provision in the Transfer of Property Act and upon a notice being issued under Section 106 of such Act and subject to the agreement between the parties as to the property in question, a decree for eviction may be sought and passed without a landlord being required to demonstrate that he reasonably requires the premises in question for his own use or occupation.

7. That implies that if the parties - the landlord and tenant - are not governed by the said Act of 1997, the plaintiffs in the present suit would not be required to assert or establish their reasonable requirement of the suit premises and, subject to the agreement with the tenant, would be entitled to eviction of the tenant upon issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and succeeding in the suit instituted pursuant thereto. If then, the plaintiffs herein subject themselves to the rigours of Section 6 of the 1997 Act and desire to continue with the suit notwithstanding the pendency of the proceedings pertaining to fixation of fair rent, the trial court cannot be faulted for declining the stay that the petitioning tenant had sought.

8. After all, it is not unknown in the legal system in the country for undeserving claimants and defenceless defendants dragging matters through the generous system of the courts without being appropriately dealt with by costs being imposed on them. The plaintiffs in this case cannot be sure that the order of the tribunal will govern the field, for this High Court and the Supreme Court are open for the petitioning tenant to explore thereafter.

9. The petitioner says that the quality of the notice required to be issued under Section 6 of the 1997 statute is different