WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. versus M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 18-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
v.
M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2201 of 2020)
MARCH 18, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act,
1976 – ss.2(a),(b), (c) and 3(2) – Appellant-Corporation purchased
immovable properties including a factory with land belonging to
a company – For purpose of setting up a small-scale industrial
zone, the Corporation constructed an administrative block, after
demolishing the existing structure, divided the area into small plots
– Respondent no.1 was allotted three plots of land – Prescribed
authority terminated the lease deed in accordance with s.3(2) of
1976 Act r/w r.3(1), 1976 Rules for violation of lease deed, i.e.
for not taking steps for construction of the factory building – Order
upheld by Appellate Authority – High Court held that the 1976 Act
did not apply to the premises in question as Corporation is not a
government undertaking and the premises is not a government
premises – Held: Appellant is a “Government undertaking” as
defined in s.2(b) – Bare land has not been independently included
in the definition of “premises” – Thus, if bare land is let out by
the government and/or government undertaking to its tenant, the
incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed by the provisions
of 1976 Act and as such a tenant cannot be evicted by taking aid
of the provisions of the Act – Plots leased to respondent no.1 did
not contain any structures – When eviction proceedings were
initiated, admittedly, the land in question did not contain any
structures – Material date is the date of initiation of eviction
proceedings – Eviction proceeding was in respect of these plots
of land and not the entire property purchased by the Corporation
– Premises in question does not come within the definition of s.2(a)
– Eviction proceedings initiated by the appellant against
respondent no.1 under the 1976 Act was without jurisdiction –
Appellants at liberty to seek eviction of respondent nos. 1 & 2 from
the land in question under 1962 Act – West Bengal Government
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 209
209
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Premises (Tenancy and Regulation) Rules, 1976 – r.3(1) – Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 – Companies Act,1956 – s.617 – West Bengal
Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 –
Interpretation of Statutes.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1.1 The appellant-company is a “Government
undertaking” as defined in Section 2(b) of the West Bengal
Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. The term
“Government premises” is defined in Section 2(a) as any
premises which is owned by the State Government or by a
Government undertaking but does not include the official
residence of any person authorized to occupy the premises in
consideration of the office which he holds under the State
Government or a Government undertaking for the time being.
The expression “premises” is defined in Section 2(c) of the Act.
Therefore, a premises can be regarded as “Government
premises” only when it satisfies the definition of “Government
premises” under Section 2(a) of the Act read conjointly with the
definition of “premises” under Section 2(c) of the Act.
Government premises defined in Section 2(a) cannot be read in
isolation of the definition of “premises” under Section 2(c) of
the Act. If the definition of “Government premises” appearing
in Section 2(a) of the Act is read conjointly with the definition of
“premises” appearing in Section 2(c) of the said Act, it not only
includes a building or a part of it or a hut or a part of it but also
includes a seat in a room, let separately, and also includes the
gardens, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant thereto
together with the furniture, all fittings and fixtures provided for
the use of the tenant in such building, hut or a seat in a room
let separately. Thus, when a seat in a room of a Government
premises is let out to a tenant, certainly it will be a Government
premises. Again, if a seat in a room is let out together with the
gardens; grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to a seat
in a room, such tenancy will be of a “Government premises”.
The expression “includes” is used in two places of the definition
of “premises” in Section 2(c) and the expression “includes”
which was used for the second time in the said definition without
any doubt was included to expand the am

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