Supreme Court: In a case wherein, a petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution to set aside the order dated 30-06-1950, the five-judges bench of Patanjali Sastri, CJ., Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea*, S.R. Das and Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ., opined that it was true that the profit margin allowed to the landlord under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (‘Rent Control Act’) was much less than what he enjoyed before, but that would not make the restrictions imposed upon the rights of the landlord necessarily unreasonable. Such restrictions might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Background
The petitioner, was a karta of joint Hindu family which consisted of the petitioner, his mother, his infant son. The petitioner with his family resided in a portion of the house owned by him, while the rest of it was let out to tenants. Respondent 1 was a monthly tenant of one shop room on the ground floor of the building and paid monthly rent of Rs. 32.
Since, Respondent 1 defaulted in rent payment for several months, the petitioner filed an ejectment suit against him in the Small Causes Court, Calcutta and stated that as per Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, if the tenant failed to pay the rent for three consecutive months, his interest was ipso facto determined. Thus, as per order dated 30-11-1949, Respondent 1 was directed to vacate the shop room. Further, on 03-01-1950, Respondent 1 filed an appeal against the judgment, due to which the proceedings of recovery of possession were stayed.
Thereafter, the Rent Control Act came into force on 31-03-1950 and Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, gave powers to the Court to rescind or vary decrees and orders or give relief in pending suits on condition of the tenant’s paying up all the arrears of rent due up to the date together with interest and costs, within such time as was fixed by the court.
Since, Section 18 of the Rent Control Act was retrospective in operation, on 30-05-1950, Respondent 1 filed an application before the Trial Court for vacating the ejectment order as per Section 18 of the Rent Control Act and subsequently, on 30-05-1950, the order was made in Respondent 1’s favour and he complied with the Trial Court’s direction relating to payment of arrears of rent with interest and costs.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and contended that his fundamental right to hold property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution had been infringed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The petitioner contended that while the Act had given the largest measure of protection to the tenants, the landlords were precluded from demanding anything in excess of the standard rent.
The petitioner further contended that the value of the money had gone down by almost five times since 1941 and the price level of building materials and all essential commodities had risen proportionately. However, the tenant had been allowed to continue at the same rent that prevailed in 1941. Thus, the petitioner contended that the profit margin derived from the premises let out to tenants had dwindled down almost to nothing.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Supreme Court opined that the figures given in the petition were highly inflated and did not represent the real state of affairs. The petitioner had deducted 50% of the gross rental as costs of repairs, though as per Section 38(2) of the Rent Control Act, the tenant was entitled to deduct only 12½% of the yearly rental for effecting essential and necessary repairs, in case the landlord failed or refused to made them. Further, the question as to whether the restrictions imposed by a statutory enactment were reasonable or not could not be judged by reference to the facts of one individual case.
The Supreme Court opined that it was true that the profit margin allowed to the landlord under the Rent Control Act was much less than what he enjoyed before, but that would not make the restrictions imposed upon the rights of the landlord necessarily unreasonable. Such restrictions might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public.
The Supreme Court agreed with the view laid down by the Special Bench of Calcutta High Court in Ishwari Prasad Goenka v. N.R. Sen 1951 SCC OnLine Cal 232, wherein it was held that the restrictions upon the landlord’s rights imposed by the Rent Control Act were not unreasonable. Thus, the Supreme Court opined that the contentions raised by the petitioner was untenable and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
[Jugal Kishore Dhandhania v. Kabiraj Kali Ranjan Bhattacharjee, (1952) 1 SCC 764, decided on 26-05-1952]
Note: The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
Since, the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 is no longer in force, the regulation of certain incidents of tenancy of premises in Calcutta, Howrah and some other areas in West Bengal is now governed as per the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (‘the Act’). Section 4 and 5 of the Act provides for Obligations of landlords and tenants respectively. Section 6 of the Act provides protection of tenant against the eviction, wherein no order or decree for the recovery of the possession of any premises shall be made by the Controller in favour of the landlord against the tenant, except on an application made to him by the landlord in the prescribed manner on the ground mentioned in the section. Section 7 of the Act provides when a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction. Further, Chapter 9 of the Act provides the provisions regarding essential repairs, wherein Section 35 of the Act specifies the making of repair and taking of measures for maintenance of essential service.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondents: B. Sen, Advocate
*Judgment authored by- Justice B.K. Mukherjea
Buy Constitution of India HERE
