9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decree was made on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. 2. Applicability of the amended provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1950, to the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the decree was made on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent: The Court examined whether the decree for possession was made due to the tenant's default in paying arrears of rent. The landlord had initially filed the suit on May 13, 1948, claiming the tenant defaulted from July 1946 to December 1947. However, the tenant had paid all arrears before the hearing, which took place on January 30, 1950. The tenant argued that since he had paid all arrears of rent as per Section 12 (1) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, no decree could be passed against him. The Court, however, noted that the tenant had not paid the interest and costs as required by the Act. The judgment emphasized that the tenant must pay all arrears of rent, interest, and costs within the specified time to get protection under the Act. Since the tenant did not fulfill these conditions, the decree was not based on the default in payment of arrears of rent. The Court stated: "Reading the judgment and the decree, the Court has to find out the ground on which the decree was made. The Court is not entitled to speculate or substitute its own judgment for the previous judgment." The Court concluded that the decree was not passed on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent because the arrears had been paid before the hearing. The landlord's acceptance of the arrears payment before the hearing waived the default, and the decree was instead based on the tenant's failure to fulfill the conditions of the Act (payment of interest and costs). 2. Applicability of the amended provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1950, to the case: The second issue was whether the amendments to the Act of 1950 applied retrospectively to the case. Sections 5 and 6 of the Amending Act stipulated that the amended provisions would apply to all pending applications and suits. The amendments replaced the phrase "on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent under the provisions" with "on the ground that the interest of the tenant in such premises has been 'ipso facto' determined under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 12." The Court held that since the appeal was pending when the Amending Act came into force, the amended provisions applied. The Court stated: "In other words, by the amending Act the only persons who are given relief under Section 18 are tenants whose tenancies have been determined by reason of their failure to pay three consecutive months' rent." The tenant's application did not fall under this category because his tenancy was not determined due to non-payment of three consecutive months' rent. Thus, the tenant was not entitled to relief under Section 18 (1) of the Act of 1950 as amended. The Court concluded that the tenant's application was pending at the commencement of the Amending Act, and therefore, the amended provisions applied, disqualifying the tenant from obtaining relief. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed with costs, as the tenant was not entitled to the relief sought under Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, due to the reasons stated above. The landlord was appointed as the receiver to withdraw the rent deposited in the Rent Controller's office, with the condition to credit the tenant for the amount withdrawn.
|
