SHIBANI BALA DAS Vs. SANTIRAM BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are not in dispute. The list of dates has been supplied One Narendra, Nath Das, predecessor in interest of the petitioners, was inducted as a tenant in respect of the property in question. On the 7th Sept., 1964, one Santi Ranjan Biswas, plaintiff-opposite party, auction purchased that property in a Court sale. On the 10th Feb., 1965, he took delivery of possession. Then on the 2nd March, 1966, he instituted the suit for ejectment of Narendra Nath Das on the ground, of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation. Eventually, the suit was decreed There are some other facts, which are not necessary for the purpose of the present rule. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, was amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act 1970, Sec. 17-E was inserted providing for making an application by the tenant within sixty days from the date of commencement of the amending Act before the trial Court to set aside the decree, it the same was passed on the ground of reasonable requirement, provided that the interest of the landlord was acquired before the expiration of a period of three years from the date of acquisition of such interest by purchase. On the 2nd May, 1970 urge petitioners filed an application under Sec. 17-E of the Act. The application was turned down by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court. Hence this revisional application.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the language as used In sub-section (1) of Sec. 17-E of the Act is very clear The relevant portion thereof shows that where before, the commencement of such amending Act a decree for recovery of possession was passed in suit brought by the landlord, who had acquired his interest in the premises by transfer, before the expiration of period of three years from the date of his acquisition of such interest on the ground of reasonable requirement embodied in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 13 as it was In force before such commencement, but possession of the premises was not recovered by execution of the decree the tenant may within a period of sixty days from the date of commencement of the amending Act, make an application to set aside the decree. Since the language used is absolutely clear, no reference to the objects and reasons can be made The case of Central Bank Vs. Workmen, reported in 1960(1) S.C.A. 454 at page 473 has been cited to show that the statement of objects and reasons is not admissible, for construing the section, for less it can control the actual words used the section speaks of purchase. No distinction has Seen made in the section between voluntary and Involuntary transfer simply because Santi Ranjan Bitwas purported to make an auction purchase in the Court bale, he cannot claim higher protection and ask for exemption from the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17E of the Act on such ground The learned Judge of the City Civil Court made a mistake in the respect The case of Sarin Vs. Ajit Kumar, reported in 1966(1) S.C.A. 285 at page 290 has been cited. Sec. 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act contains provisions similar to those engrafted in section 17-E of the West Bengal Act. It will appear from the page 290 of Sarin's case (supra) that in regard to cases falling under Sec. 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a person who bad no title to the premises and in that sense, was a stranger, becomes a landlord by virtue of the transfer. The case of partition amongst co-owners stands on a completely different footing because they are the co-sharers and the parties to the suit have pre-existing title to the property. But a stranger has no previous title or possession in the property in question. This Court should held that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17-E of the West Bengal Act do not apply to the case of an auction purchaser in a Court sale.

(3.) The learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, has referred to the case of Krishna Das Nandy Vs. Bidhan Chandra Roy, in 63 C.W.N. 29 at page 42 to show that the Rent Control Act was passed for the protection of tenants. The main part of section 12(1) of the Act gives absolute immunity to tenants from eviction. In this context, when proviso (a) speaks of a transfer by the tenant, it refers to a transfer in substance at least if not in form, also by the tenant and It will not apply where the transfer is by operation of law and the tenant his no hand in it, although technically or inform it is and appears to be a transfer by him. The case of Omkar Singh Vs. Saheb Datta, in 1970 All India R.C J. 15 has been cited to show that the Delhi High Court has taken the view that because of the background of the object of section 14(6) of the Act a transfer must be a voluntary act of the landlord. It has, thus, been contended that section 171(1) does not apply to an involuntary transfer in a Court sale.