Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the landlord challenging the rejection of an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The landlord had sought a direction to compel the tenant to pay occupation charges at the prevailing market rate during the pendency of an eviction suit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision and ruled that the tenant, being a statutory tenant under the 1997 Act, could not be asked to pay such charges in the absence of a decree of eviction.
Facts
The petitioner-landlord filed an eviction suit in 2003 against the tenants on various grounds under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The eviction suit was filed after the termination of tenancy through a statutory notice under Section 6(4) of the 1997 Act. During the pendency of the suit, the landlord filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking arrears and continuing occupation charges from 2003 to 2024 at market rates, claiming that the suit property was in a prime commercial location near the Calcutta High Court.
The trial court rejected this application, noting that the tenant was still protected as a statutory tenant. The landlord then challenged this rejection through the present civil revision petition before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether a tenant who continues in possession after termination of tenancy under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is liable to pay occupation charges at the market rate pending an eviction suit.
- Whether such a tenant can be treated as a tenant at sufferance or remains a statutory tenant until a decree of eviction is passed.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the tenant was commercially exploiting the suit premises located in a prime area of Kolkata and that the rent originally agreed upon was extremely low. The petitioner argued that since the tenancy had been terminated, the tenant’s continued occupation was akin to unlawful possession, justifying an order for payment of occupation charges at prevailing market rates. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai (2024) and Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan (2011), to argue that courts can direct payment of occupation charges even before a decree of eviction.
Respondent’s Arguments
The tenant opposed the petition arguing that the 1997 Act does not provide for market rate occupation charges during the pendency of an eviction suit. The respondent argued that the petition was an indirect attempt to increase rent. It was further pointed out that the petitioner had delayed the trial proceedings for years and had not availed the remedy of rent revision under the Act. The trial court had rightly passed a reasoned order rejecting the petition, and no interference under Article 227 was warranted.
Analysis of the Law
The Court interpreted Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act to affirm that a tenant includes someone continuing in possession after termination of tenancy and is hence a statutory tenant. The landlord’s issuance of a notice under Section 6(4) does not make the tenant’s occupation unlawful. The 1997 Act creates a statutory tenancy which protects such a tenant until a decree for eviction is passed.
The Court analysed Section 7 of the 1997 Act, which provides that tenants must pay rent at the last paid rate and not at a higher or market rate. The Act does not authorize courts to impose occupation charges during the pendency of eviction proceedings.
Precedent Analysis
- Gian Devi v. Jiban Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 796 – Affirmed that statutory tenants are recognised under rent control statutes and enjoy the same protections as contractual tenants under the Act.
- Biswabani (P) Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta, (1980) 1 SCC 185 – Held that a statutory tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 remains protected until a decree is passed.
- Bijay Kumar v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai, (2024) 8 SCC 668 – Distinguished. There, the tenant was a tenant at sufferance under the Transfer of Property Act, not a statutory tenant.
- Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan, (2011) 7 SCC 755 – Also distinguished. The Court held that market rent was agreed by both parties in that case and the observations were for reducing landlord-tenant litigation and not applicable here.
- V. Dhanapal Chattiar v. Yesodai Ammal, (1976) 2 SCC 103 – Held that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required for eviction under rent control laws.
- Mono Ranjan Dasgupta v. Suchitra Ganguly, AIR 1989 Cal 14 – Followed Dhanapal Chattiar to reiterate that no Section 106 notice is needed under rent control statutes.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the tenant remained a statutory tenant by operation of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, and that the Act does not allow for occupation charges at market rates to be imposed in such cases. It clarified that the landlord’s reliance on Bijay Kumar and Mohammad Ahmad was misplaced as those cases dealt with tenants under different statutes and circumstances.
The Court underscored that the landlord had not approached the Rent Controller under Sections 17–19 of the 1997 Act to seek fixation of fair rent. It reiterated that a tenant can only be required to pay rent at the last paid rate and not more.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the trial court’s order and dismissed the revision petition, ruling that tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 cannot be compelled to pay occupation charges at the market rate pending eviction proceedings. It held that occupation becomes unlawful only upon the passing of an eviction decree, not merely on service of notice.
Implications
This judgment clarifies that statutory tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are protected from market-rate occupation charges until eviction decrees are passed. It affirms the limited remedies available to landlords under the Act and underscores the importance of using statutory mechanisms like rent fixation before invoking equitable remedies through civil courts.
FAQs
1. Can a landlord claim market-rate rent from a statutory tenant during an eviction suit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997?
No, the Act mandates rent payment at the last paid rate. Market-rate occupation charges cannot be imposed until the tenant is evicted by decree.
2. What is a statutory tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997?
A statutory tenant is one who continues to possess the premises even after termination of tenancy through statutory notice, and is protected under the Act until a decree of eviction is passed.
3. What remedies are available to landlords for low rent under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997?
Landlords can approach the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent under Sections 17 to 19 of the Act.
