Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 157 - SC - Indian LawsApplicability of rent act - seeking recovery of Municipal Tax ( including surcharge and water tax/fees) from the tenant - Whether share of municipal tax due and payable by the tenant under Section 230 of the Act 1980 and Section 5(8) of the Act 1997 shall be included within the expression rent or in other words, the share of municipal tax due and payable by the tenant can be said to be a part of the rent of the premises let out? HELD THAT - As per Section 230 of the Act 1980, a person primarily liable to pay the property tax (lessor) in respect of any land or building may recover half of the amount of the property tax from the occupier (lessee/tenant) of the property. Section 231 of the Act 1980 provides that the person primarily liable to pay any property tax is entitled to recover the consolidated rate including surcharge from the occupier of the property and for that purpose the person primarily liable shall have the same rights and remedies as if such sum were rent payable to him by the person from whom he is entitled to recover such sum. Section 5(8) of the Act 1997 casts an obligation on the tenant to pay his share of municipal tax as an occupier of the premises in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1980. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Calcutta Gujarati Education Society 2003 (8) TMI 476 - SUPREME COURT , the amount of tax due and payable by the tenant under Section 230 of the Act 1980 r/w Section 5(8) of the Act 1997 can be recovered as arrears of rent (Section 231 of the Act 1980) and for that purpose, namely, for the purpose of recovery the tax apportioned on the tenant would be treated as rent and would be recoverable as such. So far as reliance being placed upon Section 18 of the Act 1997 and the submission that under Section 18 of the Act 1997 the rent shall be automatically increased by revision of 5% every three years and therefore by giving the increase by revision of 5% every three years, the rent payable would be more than rupees ten thousand per month is concerned, the aforesaid contention has no substance. Section 18 of the Act 1997 shall be applicable in a case where the fair rent is determined and fixed by the Controller under Section 17 of the Act 1997. That is not the case here. Therefore, Section 18 of the Act 1997 is not applicable at all to the facts and circumstances of the case. As the monthly rent due and payable would be Rs. 10,000/- per month which cannot be said to be more than ten thousand rupees as monthly rent, the High Court has rightly observed and held that the Act 1997 shall be applicable and therefore the civil suit filed by invoking Section 106 of the TP Act is impliedly barred - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (Act 1997) based on the rent amount. 2. Inclusion of municipal taxes as part of the rent. 3. Jurisdiction of the civil suit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act). 4. Interpretation of Sections 230 and 231 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (Act 1980) and Section 5(8) of the Act 1997. 5. Automatic increase of rent under Section 18 of the Act 1997. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (Act 1997) Based on the Rent Amount: The primary issue was whether the Act 1997 applies to the tenancy agreement in question. The appellant argued that the total rent, including municipal taxes, exceeded Rs. 10,000 per month, thus exempting the tenancy from the Act 1997. However, the court held that the rent payable under the agreement was Rs. 10,000 per month, excluding municipal taxes. Therefore, the Act 1997 was applicable as the rent did not exceed the specified ceiling limit. 2. Inclusion of Municipal Taxes as Part of the Rent: The appellant contended that municipal taxes should be included in the rent, relying on Sections 230 and 231 of the Act 1980 and Section 5(8) of the Act 1997. The court examined the provisions and previous judgments, notably Calcutta Gujarati Education Society v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Popat and Kotecha Property v. Ashim Kumar Dey. It concluded that while municipal taxes can be recovered as arrears of rent, they do not constitute part of the rent unless explicitly agreed upon in the tenancy agreement. 3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Suit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act): The appellant filed a suit for eviction under Section 106 of the TP Act, claiming that the Act 1997 did not apply. The court upheld the High Court's decision that the suit was impliedly barred by the Act 1997, as the rent was Rs. 10,000 per month, making the Act applicable. Therefore, the civil suit under Section 106 of the TP Act was not maintainable. 4. Interpretation of Sections 230 and 231 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (Act 1980) and Section 5(8) of the Act 1997: The court analyzed whether municipal taxes payable by the tenant under these sections should be considered part of the rent. It referred to the judgment in Calcutta Gujarati Education Society, which stated that taxes could be recovered as arrears of rent but did not become part of the rent. The court emphasized that the tenancy agreement did not specify that the rent included municipal taxes, thus municipal taxes were separate from the rent. 5. Automatic Increase of Rent under Section 18 of the Act 1997: The appellant argued that the rent should automatically increase by 5% every three years under Section 18 of the Act 1997, potentially exceeding Rs. 10,000. The court dismissed this argument, clarifying that Section 18 applies only when fair rent is determined by the Controller under Section 17, which was not the case here. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Act 1997 was applicable as the rent was Rs. 10,000 per month, excluding municipal taxes. The civil suit under Section 106 of the TP Act was thus barred. The court upheld the High Court's interpretation that municipal taxes, while recoverable as arrears of rent, did not constitute part of the rent unless explicitly stated in the tenancy agreement. The automatic increase provision under Section 18 of the Act 1997 was deemed inapplicable. The judgment emphasized adherence to the statutory definitions and contractual terms in determining the applicability of tenancy laws.
|