LexPALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. versus PROTOS ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 847 PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. v. PROTOS ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 2763 of 2010) MARCH 26, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A B West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - ss. 17 (4A) and 20 - Revision of - 'Fair rent' - Determination of - Where c a tenancy subsists for twenty years or more in respect of premises constructed in or before the year 1984 and used for commercial purpose - Whether automatic or to be determined by Rent Controller - Held: Under s. 17(4A) there is no automatic fixation of fair rent - An order in this regard is D required to be passed by Rent Controller on the basis of an application filed -West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules, 1999 - r. 8- Rent Control and Tenancy. Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of a statutory provision - Legislative intent - Determination of - Held: A E statutory provision to be read as a whole keeping in view other relevant provisions, to correctly arrive at the legislative intent - Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous - It is not proper for courts to add words to a provision and evolve some legislative intent, not F found in the statute. The question for consideration before this Court was whether the fair rent in respect of a tenancy which subsists for 20 years or more in respect of the premises constructed in or before the year 1984 and used for G commercial purpose is required to be determined by the Rent Controller or whether the same would stand automatically determined under sub-section 4A of Section 17 r/w Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises ~7 H 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A Tenancy Act, 1997. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is that a provision in a statute must be read B as a whole and not in isolation, ignoring the other provisions of that statute. While dealing with a statutory instrument, one cannot be allowed to pick and choose. It will be grossly unjust if the court allows a person to single out and avail the benefit of a provision from a C chain of provisions which is favourable to him. A provision in a statute ought not to be read in isolation. On the contrary, a statute must be read as an integral whole keeping in view the other provisions which may be relevant to the provision in question in order to o correctly arrive at the legislative intent behind the provision in question. [Paras 13 and 15) [857-E-F; 858-E- F] E Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC 409, followed. SAIL v. S.U. T.N.I. Sangam and Ors. 2009 (10) SCALE 416, relied on. 1.2. If a statutory provision is enacted by the F legislature in a certain manner, the only reasonable interpretation which can be resorted to by the courts is that such was the intention of the legislature and that the provision was consciously enacted in that manner. The court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed G in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. If the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute. [Para18] [859-G-H; 860-A-B] H PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. v. PROTOS ENGINEERING 849 COMPANY PVT. LTD. Ansa/ Properties Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana A (2009) 3 sec 553, relied on. 2.1. The present case involves an interpretation of Section 17 (4A) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It will not be appropriate to read sub-section 4A of 8 Section 17 ignoring the other relevant provisions. Section 18 of the Act which speaks about revision of the fair rent employs the words "automatically increased" in contradistinction to the word "determined" used in Section 17(4A). The use of different terminology in the two C Sections thus indicates that the legislative intent was to lay down different modes for fixation of the rent under the two Sections. [Para 15] [858-F-G] 2.2. A plain reading of Section 20 of the Act would show that Section 20 allows the landlord to only give a D notice of his intention to increase the rent, which becomes due and recoverable from the month or period of tenancy next after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice_ is given. The requirement of giving by the landl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.