POPAT & KOTECHA PROPERTY Vs. SUPPLIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal grounds urged by the petitioning landlords are that in view of an order passed by the Supreme Court on May 10, 2012 in another matter pertaining to the same landlords, the trial court should have adjudicated whether the rent demanded by the pre-suit notice under section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was within the bounds of fair rent; and, that when a pre-suit notice under section 20 of the said Act is issued and the tenant does not overtly object thereto, the rent stands increased by deemed consent and it would be such amount that would be assessed to be the rent payable with reference to the expression "the rate at which the last rent was paid" in section 7(2) of the said Act. The first ground canvassed does not appeal since the order dated May 10, 2012 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 15404 of 2012 contains a direction that may be regarded to be in exercise of the exclusive authority of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. The relevant direction in the Supreme Court order cannot be viewed as the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, inter alia, since the direction is not preceded by any discussion and, in any event, such direction appears to run contrary to the view expressed in a previous Supreme Court judgment of the year 2010 referred to hereinafter.

(2.) There is considerable substance to the petitioners' second ground that section 20 of the said 1997 Act envisages the increase of rent pursuant to a demand made thereunder upon the tenant not objecting thereto. However, in view of the Supreme Court dictum in Pallawi Resources Limited v. Protos Engineering Company Private Limited, 2010 5 SCC 196, it is no longer open to this court to interpret section 20 to imply that unless the tenant objects to the demand made thereunder, the increase comes into effect automatically and without reference to the Rent Controller under section 17 of the said Act.

(3.) The consideration before a civil court under section 7 of the said Act is as to the rate of rent and the total amount thereof that is legally recoverable from a tenant or payable by a tenant. If the silence on the part of a tenant upon receipt of a notice under section 20 of the said Act does not result in the automatic increase of the rent as per the demand, a pre-suit notice under section 20 of the said Act is utterly irrelevant to assess the matters which may be in issue under section 7 of the said Act.