The definition of 'rent' under tenancy law includes essential service charges, thereby altering tenancy governance based on total payable amount.

JUDGMENT : 

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present first appeals and cross-objection arise out of a common judgement and separate decrees dated January 6, 2017, passed by the learned Judge, Seventh Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 554 of 2008 and Title Suit No. 1973 of 2008, respectively filed by the appellant Celica Developers (P) Limited and the respondent M/s Wadhwana.

2. The appellant, claiming the respondent to be a lessee under the Transfer of Property Act, filed Title Suit No. 554 of 2008, for eviction of the respondent on the basis of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the other hand, the respondent filed Title Suit No. 1973 of 2008 for declaration that it is a monthly tenant and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with its electricity supply. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appellant's suit for eviction was dismissed and the declaratory suit of the respondent was decreed, thereby holding that the respondent is a premises tenant under the West Bengal Premise Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1997 Act”) and granting permanent injunction as prayed for by the respondent.

3. FAT No.66 of 2017 has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the dismissal of its eviction suit, whereas FA no.156 of 2022 has been preferred by it against the decree passed in the respondent's suit. A cross-objection, bearing COT No.33 of 2018, has been filed by the respondent in respect of the appeals.

4. The bone of contention in the appeals is whether the respondent is a monthly tenant under the 1997 Act or a lessee under the Transfer of Property Act. The respondent contends that the rent of the suit property, which has been let out for commercial purpose only, falls within the ceiling limit of Rs.10,000/- in terms of Section 3 (f)(i) of the 1997 Act, and, as such governed by the said statute. On the other hand, the appellate claims that the rent includes the total amount payable by the tenant/respondent for enjoyment of the suit premises which, over and above the basic rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month, includes the air-conditioning (for short, “AC”) charges amounting to Rs. 11,000/-per month, and the defendant/respondent's share of municipal rates and taxes. Calculated in such manner, the rent goes beyond the ceiling limit and thus, is excluded from the purview of the 1997 Act.

5. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant argues that whatever amounts are payable for enjoyment of the tenanted premises, including charges for facilities and amenities thereto, are included within the definition of “rent”. In support of such contention, counsel cites Popat & Kotecha Property and Others v. Ashim Kumar Dey reported at (2018) 9 SSC 149.

6. It is argued that D.W.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that the plaintiff/appellant-Company has been supplying electricity to the respondent. It was further admitted that it is not possible to run the suit shop room without AC and that the AC provided to the suit premises is centrally circulated. Thus, it is argued that the AC charges are an integral part of the rent.

7. It is next argued by the appellant that the written statement of the respondent contains admissions to the effect that the defendant/respondent tendered cheques to the plaintiff/appellant both in view of the rent and AC as well as electricity charges. Thus, it is the appellant which has been providing such electricity through its agent one M/s Urban Services Pvt. Ltd.

8. The learned Senior Advocate appearing