2010 (3) TMI 1257 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of sub-section 4A of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
2. Determination of fair rent for tenancies subsisting for 20 years or more.
3. Requirement of reference to the Rent Controller for rent determination.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of sub-section 4A of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997:
The primary issue in this appeal concerns the interpretation of sub-section 4A of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The question is whether the fair rent for a tenancy subsisting for 20 years or more, in premises constructed in or before 1984 and used for commercial purposes, must be determined by the Rent Controller or if it stands automatically determined u/s 17(4A) read with Section 20 of the Act.

2. Determination of fair rent for tenancies subsisting for 20 years or more:
The appellant argued that the determination of fair rent is automatic under Section 17(4A) once the three pre-conditions are met, without reference to the Rent Controller. The respondent contended that Section 17(4A) must be read in conjunction with other sub-sections, particularly Section 17(1), which requires the Rent Controller to fix the fair rent. The Court noted that Section 17(4A) lays down the mode for determining fair rent but does not exclude the necessity of an application to the Rent Controller.

3. Requirement of reference to the Rent Controller for rent determination:
The Court emphasized that a statute must be read as a whole, and no part of it should be construed in isolation. It noted that Section 20 allows the landlord to give notice of intention to increase the rent, which becomes due after 30 days, indicating that the legislature did not intend for the rent to be fixed automatically without reference to the Rent Controller. The Court held that even if the rent determination involves minimal calculation, an order from the Rent Controller is necessary. The Court rejected the appellant's argument of automatic rent fixation without reference to the Rent Controller, stating that the legislative intent was to require an application to the Rent Controller for fair rent determination.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that sub-section 4A of Section 17 does not provide for automatic rent determination without reference to the Rent Controller. The parties are to bear their own costs.