The rights of tenants under a rent control legislation are protective rights and can be varied or altered by subsequent legislation.

1. No question of any substance, particularly on law, is raised by the appellants in seeking to challenge an appellate judgment and decree confirming a decree of eviction.

2. The essential facts must first be noticed. It is not in dispute that the tenancy was originally created in favour of one K.C. Jain in the year 1976. K.C. Jain died in the year 2000, prior to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 coming into operation. K.C. Jain was survived at the time of his death by wife Sushila and his three sons who are the appellants herein. He had also three daughters, Puspa, Rekha and Asha, who were married and the evidence shows that they stayed at their individual matrimonial homes and did not reside with K.C. Jain at the time of the original tenant's death.

3. The rent or occupation charges for the decretal premises was last increased some time in 2008. The consolidated rent charged was Rs. 6815/- per month. There is no dispute on this score and the concurrent findings of the courts below do not permit the factual position to be reopened. However, the appellants seek to assert that the rent component comprised the municipal rates and taxes paid to the Corporation; the contention is that such amount as goes on account of municipal rates and taxes has to be deducted from the quantum of rent to arrive at a figure which would conform to the threshold of rent for the purpose of the Act of 1997.

4. Two primary grounds are urged by the appellants and are sought to be put forth as substantial questions of law requiring a protracted consideration by this court. They assert that the courts below erred in holding that the tenancy was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and not by the Act of 1997 only because Section 3(e)(i) of the Act of 1997 recognises the upper limit of residential rent to be Rs. 6,500/- per month. The appellants also claim that since their father died prior to the 1997 Act coming into effect, at the time that the 1997 Act became effective their mother and the three appellants were all joint tenants and the subsequent death of their mother in 2009 could not have given any cause of action to the landlord to seek the appellants' eviction.

5. In support of such grounds, two judgments of this court have been brought. The judgment reported at (2016) 2 Cal LT 526 (EIH Limited v. Nadia A Virji) has been cited in aid of the appellants' contention that the component of rent that goes towards municipal rates and taxes must be disregarded to assess whether the threshold amount as envisaged in Section 3(e)(i) of the Act of 1997 is breached. The other judgment, also rendered by a single bench and reported at (2013) 1 CHN (Cal) 336 (Goutam Dey v. Jyotsna Chatterjee), is placed for the proposition that a right that may have vested under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956 could not be taken away by the Act of 1997.

6. In the first of the cases cited, it is evident from the initial paragraphs of the report that the defendant in that case was inducted as a monthly tenant at the Oberoi Grand Hotel arcade at a rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The tenant was also liable to pay municipal rates and taxes amounting to Rs. 18,622/- per quarter. The tenanted premises was used for commercial purpose. The single bench held that "Any amount, which is variable in nature and depends upon certain contingencies cannot be characterised as rent" though in the previous sentence it was held that the definition of rent "in its wider sense not only includes the basic rent but also the other amount payable by the tenant in lieu of amenities and facilities attached to the tenancy and may further include the maintenance/service charges and municipal tax and commercial surcharge which is a statutory obligation." In any event, as is evident from the terms of the relevant agreement set out in the report, the quantum of rent for the tenanted premises used for commercial purpose was not in excess of Rs. 10,000/-. The relevant expression