KATNANI PROPERTIES LIMITED Vs. AUGUSTINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question for determination in these three analogous appeals by special leave is whether the provisions of S.9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions ) Act, 1950, (which hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Act') apply to the three premises which formed the subject matter of three separate proceedings in the Courts below; and, if so, which clause thereof. The common landlord is the appellant in each case, the respondent in each case being the tenant of the particular tenement.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points of law at issue between the parties, it is necessary to state the relevant facts shown of all details relating to the basic rent and the standard rent fixed at different stages of the proceedings. Those details are not necessary for the determination of these appeals. The undisputed facts are that the appellant is seized and possessed of several municipal holdings collectively known as the Karnani Mansions, 25-A, Park Street, together with adjoining premises situated at the junction of Park Street and Free School Street in the city of Calcutta. There are about 210 flats of different types and shop-rooms in the said Karnani Mansions let out separately to tenants. The tenant in each of the three cases leading up to the appears in this Court had been inducted by the predecessor-in-title of the appellant. In each case the tenancy consisted of a single room, a bath and a covered verandha. The tenant has also the use of a number of fans, plug points, towel racks, besides a basin, a commode and a glass shelf. The landlord also supplies without any additional charge electrical energy for consumption by the tenant for the use of lamps, fans, radio, ovens for cooking, for ironing, laundering and refrigerators. The landlord is also responsible for repairs of the electric installations and sanitary fittings, as also for supplying service of night guards, sweepers, liftmen etc. The tenant in each case applied before the Rent Controller of Calcutta under S. 9 read with Schedule A of the Act for fixation of standard rent in respect of the flat occupied by the applicant. The landlord resisted the application on the ground, inter aria, that the Rent Controller was not authorised by the Act to deal with the tenancies in question because the premises were outside the scope of the Act; that there had been a great increase in the cost of maintenance, as also of repairs and replacements of electric and other installations, that there had been a considerable enhancement of the charge for electricity supplied by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., and of Government duty on the same; that if the Court held that these premises were governed by the provisions of the Act, the landlord was entitled to proportionate increase in respect of those charges; that the Act does not make specific provision for increasing the rent with reference to the charges aforesaid would also point to the conclusion that the Act was not intended to be applied to the tenancies in question. The Rent Controller after having inspections made of the premises in question fixed a standard rent in accordance with the rules laid down in Schedule A to the Act. The rent thus standardized was to take effect from September 1, 1950. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, Calcutta, against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority allowed the landlord's appeal in part by settling the standard rent at a higher figure than that arrived at by the Rent Controller by applying the provisions of cl. (g) of S.9. The Appellate Authority aforesaid negatived the landlord's contention that the premises in question providing the special service and amenities aforesaid were outside the ambit of the Act. It gave the landlord relief in respect of the higher charges for electric consumption and Government duty aforesaid. The standard rent thus fixed by the Appellate Authority was in excess of the original rent agreed between the parties. The tenant in each case moved the High Court of Calcutta in its revisional jurisdiction . The learned single Judge of the High Court who heard the revisional applications allowed them in part, giving effect virtually, though not entirely, to the decision of the Rent Controller and holding that cl. (g) of S.9 of the Act was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the cases before the Court. He relied upon a Division Bench ruling of the same Court in the case of Residence Ltd. vs. Surendra Mohan, AIR 1951 Cal 126 (A), which, it is agreed at the Bar, is on all fours with the facts and circumstances of the present case. After the rejection by the High Court of the appellant's petition for a certificate under Art.133 of the Constitution, the appellant obtained from this Court special leave to appeal on common questions of law. Hence the appeals in each of these three cases have been heard together.

(3.) In these appeals the learned Solicitor-General appearing on behalf of the appellant raised substantially two points for determination, namely, (1) that the Act does not apply to the premises in question in view of the special incidents of the tenancy as disclosed in the terms of the lease in the standard form as exhibited in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1955 (Exhibit J.) between the appellant and Miss N. Augustin, and as found by the Courts of fact below; and (2) alternatively, that if the Court were to come to the conclusion that the premises in question were within the ambit of the Act, cl. (g) of S.9 should be applied to the tenancies in question as determined by the Appellate Authority aforesaid.