9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decree. The appellants were directed to deposit ₹ 6,000/- per month provisionally before the Court from May, 2001. 2. There is no dispute that the appellant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of a Godown, the tenancy being governed by the provisions contained in West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The plaintiff-landlord had filed this suit for specific performance of agreement between the parties being Ext.-1A, by which both the parties agreed that each of them would appoint a Government valuer for assessing the valuation of the Godown and for fixation of rent as per Government Rules. 3. According to the plaintiff, he had nominated a Government valuer but the defendant had not honoured that agreement, hence the suit. 4. The aforesaid suit was contested by the present appellant by filing written statement thereby denying the allegations made in the plaint and the main question that came up for hearing before the learned Trial Judge was whether such type of agreement could be enforced by a Civil Court. In other words, the defence of the appellant was that in the matter of fixation of fair rent or increase of existing rent, the parties are required to appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Ors. reported in: [1975]1SCR575 . 5. M. M. Chawla v. J. S. Sethi reported in [1970]2SCR390 . 9. The aforesaid contentions of Mr. Roy Chowdhury are seriously disputed by Mr. Banerjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondent. According to Mr. Banerjee the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act merely recommends one of the mode of fixation of fair rent and if the parties approach the Rent Controller in accordance with the provisions for fixation of fair rent or for enhancement of the existing rent, the Rent Controller is required to proceed in accordance with the said provisions but there is no express or implied bar created under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for entering into an agreement between the parties for any other mode of fixation if the parties so agree. Mr. Banerjee contends that there is no dispute that the parties agreed to refer the question of assessment of valuation and fixation of fair rent to Government valuer and as such, they are bound by such agreement. Mr. Banerjee, thus, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In support of the aforesaid contention Mr. Banerjee relies upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such application. But in a case, where the parties agree to reassess the existing rate of rent, it is the duty of either the landlord or the tenant to approach the Rent Controller for fixation of the fair rent of the property and his decision will be binding upon the parties; but if the parties even agree in writing to refer the dispute to a third party and decide that the decision of that third party will be final, such agreement, being contrary to the provision contained in West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, cannot be specifically enforced. Therefore, if the landlord is of the view that existing rate of rent is less than reasonable fair rent of the property, his only remedy available under the statute is either to mutually settle the matter with the tenant and arrive at a settled amount and if no settlement is possible, to approach the Rent Controller under Section 8 of the Act but he cannot enforce an agreement between the parties laying down a different mode of fixation of fair rent. 14. We are conscious to the position of law that if the tenant of his own actually pays any amount of rent for a particular period he cannot dispute the rate of rent of the property for that pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the lessee did not vacate the premises contending that the lease was in effect one for three months only and as such, in view of Section 3(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the tenancy was governed by the said Act and became heritable. 17. The Supreme Court overruled such objection holding that the lease being one for whole life, of the same could not be construed as one for not more than twenty years so as to attract the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Simply because the tenant died before the expiry of twenty years, the Supreme Court proceeded, the same could not be construed to be a lease for less than twenty years. 18. In our view, the said decision does not say that even if a tenancy is governed by a State Rent Control Act, the parties by agreement can take it out of such provision. In the said decision the Supreme Court merely refused to recognize a lease for life to be one for less than twenty years. Thus, the said decision cannot help Mr. Banerjee's client in any way. 19. In the case of Martin Burn Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the Court has power to settle the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
