9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose is required to be determined by the Rent Controller or whether the same would stand automatically determined under sub- section 4A of Section 17 read with Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 4. At this juncture, it will be pertinent to set out a brief statement of facts in the backdrop of which the present controversy has arisen before us. A lease deed dated 15.02.1969 was executed between the appellant and the respondent herein for grant of lease, for office purposes, of the entire first floor of premises no. 20, Rajendra Nath Mukherjee Road, Calcutta for a period of twenty years from 01.02.1969 to 31.01.1989 and the rent mutually settled and agreed upon by the parties was ₹ 2,250/- per month as the basic component of the rent (the service charges and other additional payments excluded). 5. Upon the expiry of the term of twenty years, the appellant herein instituted a suit being C.S. No. 778 of 1989 before the Calcutta High Court. The appellant herein, however, had withdrawn the said suit by way of an order dated 18.04.2006. In the meanwhile, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 came into force which repealed the earlier Act of 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 17(4A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 as inserted by the 2002 Amendment Act, envisages that the determination of the fair rent would be automatic under Section 17(4A) read with Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 without reference to the Rent Controller once the three pre-conditions which govern the applicability of Section 17(4A) spelt out in that Section are fulfilled. According to the counsel for the appellant, fixation of the rent is automatic because Section 17(4A) prescribes a formal method of fixing the rent requiring only minimal calculation. The counsel further forcefully submitted before us that since the job of fixing the rent does not involve any adjudicatory process, it is a ministerial task, and hence reference to the Rent Controller is not required. 9. Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, contended that sub-section 4A of Section 17 has to be read in conjunction with the other sub-sections of that Section and that application of Section 17(1) which requires the Rent Controller to fix the fair rent cannot be dispensed with. Mr. Gupta also laid emphasis on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rease the rent is also reproduced hereunder: - Section 20 - Notice of increase of rent - Where a landlord intends to increase the rent of any premises, he shall give to the tenant the notice of his intention so to do in so far as such increase is permissible under this Act; the increase of rent shall be due and recoverable from the month or period of tenancy next after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is given. 11. It may be mentioned herein that in the original Act of 1997 there did not exist the provisions of sub-section 4A of Section 17 and the same was brought in by the Amendment Act of 2002, operating retrospectively with effect from 10.07.2001. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill of 2002 it was stated that one of the purposes for bringing in the Amendment Bill is to extend the application of the said Act to the premises let out for residential purpose and non- residential purpose having monthly rent upto ₹ 6,000/- and ₹ 10,000/- respectively situated within the limits of Kolkata Municipal Corporation or the Howrah Municipal Corporation as well as to extend the application of the said Act to the premises let out f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Ors. 2009 (10) SCALE 416, wherein this Court, very succinctly reiterated the aforesaid position in, para 79, as follows: 79. The learned counsel, however, invited our attention to take recourse to the purposive interpretation doctrine in preference to the literal interpretation. It is a well settled principle of law that a statute must be read as a whole and then chapter by chapter, section by section, and then word by word. For the said purpose, the Scheme of the Act must be noticed. If the principle of interpretation of statutes resorted to by the Court leads to a fair reading of the provision, the same would fulfill the conditions of applying the principles of purposive construction. 15. From these authorities, it is amply clear that a provision in a statute ought not to be read in isolation. On the contrary, a statute must be read as an integral whole keeping in view the other provisions which may be relevant to the provision in question in order to correctly arrive at the legislative intent behind the provision in question. Applying this principle to the case at hand which involves an interpretation of Section 17 (4A), it will not be appropriate for us to read sub-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a statutory provision is enacted by the legislature in a certain manner, the only reasonable interpretation which can be resorted to by the courts is that such was the intention of the legislature and that the provision was consciously enacted in that manner. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. If the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute. Reference in this regard may be made to the recent decision of this Court in Ansal Properties Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2009) 3 SCC 553. 19. We must also take note of the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that sub- section 4A of Section 17 employs the word `determine'. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of a three Judge bench of this Court, which is binding on us, reported as Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Rly. v. T.R. Chellappan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it cannot be said that sub-section 4A of Section 17 was sought to be brought in by way of an exception to the general rule of Section 17. Had the legislature intended otherwise, it would have specifically, in its wisdom, made sub- section 4A an exception to sub-section (1) by adding a proviso or by making a specific provision thereto under Section 3, where the Act itself provides some exemptions and provides for specific cases where the Act is not applicable. The fact that the West Bengal State legislature did not, even after insertion of sub-section 4A, amend or modify Rule 8 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules, 1999 which prescribes the manner of making applications under Section 17 for fixation of fair rent also fortifies the fact that the State legislature did not intend to incorporate sub-section 4A as an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 17. On the contrary, the non-amendment of Rule 8 goes on to show that the legislature intended the same procedure to be followed with regard to making an application under any provision of Section 17 for the fixation of fair rent. 23. Thus, in light of the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that this appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
