The judgment clarified the limited rights of the spouse of a deceased original tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, in non-residential premises.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjib Banerjee, J.

One of the judgment-debtors who has suffered an eviction decree in respect of premises let out for non-residential purpose is in appeal, primarily on the ground that as the spouse of the deceased original tenant she is entitled to protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and no decree for eviction could have been passed against her otherwise than in accordance with Section 6 of the said Act.

2. The facts are more or less admitted and are reflected in the judgment and order impugned dated August 4, 2017 passed by the VII Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. One Mohammad Naqi was inducted as a tenant in respect of shoproom No.23 on the ground floor of premises No.2 Lalbazar Street, Kolkata-700001 at a monthly rent of Rs.235.95/- payable according to the English calendar and subject to the terms and conditions as contained in an agreement dated May 6, 1988 with the landlord. An interest-free deposit of Rs.12,000/- was made by the original tenant at the time being inducted into the commercial premises. In July, 2003 the original tenant died leaving behind the appellant, his widow, and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 sons as his only heirs. In the suit filed in the year 2010, the landlord sought a decree for eviction on the ground that the limited protection enjoyed by the heirs or the like of a tenant was not available beyond five years of the death of the original tenant in view of Section 2(g) of the said Act of 1997.

3. The defendants set up myriad grounds of defence but, thankfully, the appellant confines the challenge principally to the ground that a spouse of a deceased tenant is entitled to life-time protection from eviction in respect of premises let out for non-residential purpose under Section 2(g) of the said Act.

4. The alternative contention of the appellant is that even if the spouse of a deceased tenant is not found to be entitled to life-time protection from eviction in respect of any premises let out for non-residential purpose, the second proviso to Section 2(g) of the said Act confers a right on the spouse to require the landlord to execute a fresh agreement of tenancy in respect of the relevant premises, on condition of payment of fair rent, for the duration of the life of such spouse.

5. It is, thus, that Section 2(g) of the Act falls for consideration in the context of the rights of a spouse of a deceased tenant in respect of premises let out for non-residential purpose. More precisely, the twin legal issues that have arisen in the appeal are as follows:

i. Whether the spouse of a deceased original tenant is entitled to life-time protection from eviction in respect of premises let out for non-residential purpose?

ii. If the answer to the first legal issue is against the spouse, whether such spouse has a right to have a fresh agreement executed in such spouse's favour, on condition of payment of fair rent, in respect of the premises let out for non-residential purpose?

6. The 1997 Act has replaced the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and has been enacted to provide for the regulation of certain incidents of tenancy of premises in Kolkata, Howrah and some other areas in West Bengal. The avowed object of the Act is to balance "the interests of both the landlords and the tenants and also ... stimulates future construction to meet the growing demands for housing."

7. Chapter III of the Act of 1997 is at the heart of such statute as Section 6 included in such chapter provides for the protection of tenants against eviction. Section 7 of the Act of 1997 provides further protection in case of a default in payment of rent and, as long as the tenant complies with the orders passed for making good the default, no decree for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent can be passed unless there is a repeat default within the meaning of Section 7(4) of the Act.

8. It must also be noticed that unlike the predecessor statute of 1956, the Act of 1997 accords protection to only