SAVITA DEY versus NAGESHWAR MAJUMDAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 26-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAVITA DEY 
v. 
NAGESHWAR MA.IUMDAR AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 
8 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, S.C AGRAWAL AND 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.l.J 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
C 
Wert Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: Section 3 (as Amended w.ef 
24.08.1965). 
Section 3 (1)-Not applicable to premises under lease for more than 
20 years-Section 3(2)-Not applicable to leases entered into before 
24.08.1965-Such leases would be govemed by Section 3 as it stood and 
D Section 3(1) as it now stand.~equirements of Section 3(2) cannot be 
imported into Section 3(1). 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 
Section 111 (/)-Registered deed of lease-Vmiation of rent payable 
E unde1-Does not necessarily imply SU/Tender of lease and creation of new 
tenancy--Propo1tionate increase in rate with increase in niunicipal taxes 
stipulated in the deed-Held: no question of novt;tion of contract could ever 
arise or on that event creation of new tenancy. 
The appellant by a registered lease deed dated July 6, 1964 leased 
F 
out her pren1ises to the respondents for a period of 21 years commencing 
from July 1, 19<>4 and ending on June 30, 1985 at the agreed rate of Rs. 
475 per month which subsequently was increased to Rs. 501 per month, 
consequent to the increase in municipal tax. Since the lease was expiring 
on June 30, 1985, the appellant sent a quit notice on May 26, 1985 requiring 
G the respondents to vacate the premises, on the etllux of time on June 30, 
1985. Since the respondents did not vacate the demised premises despite 
notice, a suit for possession was filed against the respondents. 
The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession. On appeal by the 
respondents the High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court. 
H Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the appellant preferred the 
80 
• 
T 
SA VITA DEY v. N. MATUMDAR 
81 
present appeal. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that they had wTrrngly 
been made to pay Rs. 5,000 as Salami at the time orthe execution of the 
lease deed and that rent was enhanced to Rs. 501 per month contrary to 
. the terms of the lease; and that this act of enhancement had the effect of 
tenancy becoming from month to month, in substitution of the lease, 
attracting provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 
prior to its amendment, effective from August 24, 1965, rendered the 
provisions of the Act inapplicable to any premises held under a lease for 
more than 20 years, whether the purpose of the lease was residential or 
non-residential. By the amendment of 1965, this provision was retained 
and re-numbered as Sub-section (1) of Section 3 while adding thereto 
Sub-section (2). [84-E-F] 
1.2. A bare reading of the provision makes it obvious that sub-sec-
tion(2) does not touch those leases which were entered into before August 
24, 1965 which remained to be governed by Section 3, as it stood and 
Section 3 (1), as it now stands, whereunder the Act is not applicable to any 
premises under a lease for more than 20 years. Since the lease in hand was 
executed on July 6, 1964 for a period commencing from July 1, 1964 and 
expiring on June 30, 1985 sub-section (2) of Section 3 obviously has no 
applicability to it. Mahindra & Mahindra v. Smt. Kohinoor Debi, (Calcutta 
High Court Notes 1989 (1) Reports, Second Appeal No. 142of1987 decided 
on December 1, 1988), approved. [85-D-E] 
2.\. The requirements of Section 3(2) of the Act could never be 
imported into Section 3(1). In the lease in hand neither the appellant nor 
the respondent had reserved to himself the unfettered right of termination 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
of the lease during the period of 21 years. In the first place, as are the facts G 
pleaded, neither of them has ever asserted the said right of premature 
termination. Perhaps no occasion arose. Secondly, ·the 11uestion of the 
precariousness of the tenure of the respondent did not arise in the cir-
cumstances of the case because the respondent had fully enjoyed the period 
of lease of 21 years. The heart of the matter is that the tenancy was never 
terminated either by the appellant or by the respondent during the period H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
of the lease. [86-F-87-C] 
B 
2.2. Adverting to the lease deed it is found that Rs. 5,000 had been 
paid by the respondent as advance rent which was adjustable in SO ilistal-
ments at the rate of Rs. 10
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.