KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. versus AUGUSTIN

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 09-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

Fruit & Vege· 
tahle Merchants 
Union 
v 
Delhi Improve· 
ment Trust 
1956 
November g, 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19571 
the Control Act do not apply to the premises in ques-
tion. That being so, it must be held that there is no 
merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. 
v. 
AUGUSTIN 
(JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. 
SINHA 
AND ]AFER IMAM JJ.) 
Rent Control-Standard rent, Fixation of-Lease providing for 
a consolidated rent--Landlord undertaking to provide special amenities 
including supply of electric current-Applicability of the Act-
Determination of fair and reasonable rent-WeSt Bengdl Premises 
Rent Cont.-ol (Temporar,Y Provisions) Act of 1950 (West Bengal XVll 
of 1950), s. 9 cl. (g) Sch. A. 
The appellant was the comthon landlord of the three premises. 
in respect of which three analogous proceedings were started by 
the respective tenants for standardisation of rent under s. 9 read 
with Sch. A of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary 
Provisions) Act of 1950. 
Under the terms of the lease, which 
provided for a consolidated monthly rent, the landlord was 
te> 
provide, besides electric installations, electric current for consump-
tion and other special amenities. His defence was that the special 
incidents of the tenancies took the tenancies out of the scope of 
the Act and if not, alternatively, cl. (g) of s. 9 of the Act should 
apply and the rent increased proportionately to the increase in the 
charges for electric current and enhanced Government duty payable 
thereon. 
The Rent Controller rejected the contentions and fixed· 
the standard rent in· accordance with the rules laid down in Sch. A 
of the Act. The Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, on appeal 
by the landlord, applied cl. (g) of s. 9 of the Act, gave relief in 
respect of the higher charges for electricity and Government duty 
and fixed the standard rent at a higher figure. The tenants moved 
the High Court in revision and it held that cl. (g) of s. 9 did not 
apply and virtually, though not entirely, affirmed the decision of 
the Rent Controller. 
The landlord appealed by special leave on 
the qu"tstions of law involved. 
Held, that the Act applied to the premises and the standard: 
rent must be determined under the provisions of cl. (g) of s. 9 of 
the Act and the decision of the Chief Judge restored. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
21 
The term 'premises' as defined in s. 2(8) of the Act was wide 
enough to cover the tenancies with their special incidents and the 
consolidated monthly rent for the amenities provided by the land-
lord came within the comprehensive sense in which the word rent 
was used by the Act and was as such liable to be controlled under 
it. 
The observation to the contrary made in respect of such rent 
in the case of Residence Ltd. v. Surendra Mohan did not correctly 
represent the legal position. 
Property Holding Co., Ltd. v. Clark, (1948) 1 K. B. 630, and 
Alliance Property Co. Ltd. v. Shaffer, ( 1948) 2 K. B. 464, referred to. 
Residence Ltd. v. 
Surendra Mohan, A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 126, 
considered. 
The purpose which the legislature had in view in enacting the 
Act and the wide terms in whiLh it defined the term 'premises' 
leave no 
manner of doubt that its operative 
provisions 
were 
intended to have a wide .application and the mere putting in of a 
term. in the lease, not in terms provided for by any of the clauses. 
of s. 9, could not take the tenancy out of the scope of the Act and 
it would be the duty of the Court, in order that the provisions of 
the Act might have full effect, to give as wide an application to-
them as was permissible under the Act. 
Where, as in the instant case, the lease provided for a consoli· 
dated monthly rent, the 
Rem 
Controller and other authorities. 
under the Act were empowered by the provisions of cl. (g) of s. 9-
to determine the standard rent on a consideration of all the· 
payments that constituted the agreed rent and they did not prohibit 
a recourse to such other provisions of the Act as could be applied, 
either in part or as a whole, in arriving at a fair and reasonable rent. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: 
Nos. 32 ·to 34 of 1955. 
Civil. 
Appeals 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated September 5, 1952, of the Calcutta High 
Court in Civil Revision cases Nos. 3257, 3258 and 3259 
of 1951 arising out of the order dated September 7, 
1951, of the Court of Small Causes at Calc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.