Karam Chand Lallchand vs Manek Bahramshaw

Renupada Mukherjee, J.—This Rule was obtained by the Petitioner-landlord and is directed against an order passed by the Judge of the fourth Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, in appeal against an order of the Rent Controller before whom an application for standardisation of rent of a vacant plot of land was filed by the tenant-opposite party. The facts necessary for the purpose of the revisional application may be briefly stated thus:

Municipal premises No. 33, Bow Bazar Street, comprise several buildings and a vacant plot of land of which the owner is the Petitioner. It is an admitted fact that these buildings have been severally let out to different persons with whom we are not concerned in the present case. The vacant plot of land which is situate within the above municipal premises has been let out separately to the opposite party by the Petitioner at a rent of Rs. 60 per month. As this rent was considered by the tenant to be excessive and exorbitant, he filed the application before the Rent Controller for standardisation of the rent. The learned Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 11 per month. Against this order an appeal was preferred by the landlord and the learned Judge who heard the appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the Rent Controller for fixing the standard rent in accordance with some principles laid down in the judgment. Against this order the landlord has come up in revision.

The only point urged by Mr. Ganguly appearing on behalf of the Petitioner was that the plot of land which has been demised to the tenant is admittedly a vacant land without any building or structure upon it, and although it forms part of one entire municipal premises the land does not constitute premises within the meaning of Section 2(5)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. Section 2(8)(a) runs thus:

''premises'' means any building or part of a building or any hut or part of a hut let separately and includes�(a) the gardens, grounds and outhouses (if any) appertaining to such building or part of a building or hut or part of a hut.

Mr. Ganguly contended that the word ''premises'' as defined in Section 2(5) of the "West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, does not bear the same meaning or connotation as given in other Acts, such as, the Calcutta Municipal Act, and in order to determine whether the Rent Control Act would, apply in a particular case or not, regard must be had to the definition of the word ''premises'' as given in Section 2(5). That definition, Mr. Ganguly argued, makes it abundantly clear that in order that any premises would come within the operation of the Act, it is essential that the premises must have some building or part of a building or hut or part of a hut upon the same and such building or part of a building or hut or part of a hut must be let separately. There may be gardens or grounds which may form parts of such premises but by themselves gardens or grounds cannot comprise any premises within the meaning of the Rent Control Act. I agree with Mr. Ganguly in accepting this definition of ''premises'' because in my judgment the words ''and includes'' and also the word ''such'' used in Clause (a) of the Sub-section leave no room for doubt that there must be some building or part of a building or hut or part of a hut in order to constitute ''premises'' within the meaning of Section 2(8). By themselves gardens, grounds or vacant lands cannot comprise any premises within the meaning of the Rent Control Act.

Mr. Sen appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that it would be enough for a vacant land to comprise premises if such vacant land appertains to any building or part of a building or hut or part of a hut. This definition is not borne out by the section itself, and in my judgment both the courts below went wrong in holding that the vacant plot of land in this particular case comprised one separate premises within the meaning of the Rent Control Act because there are buildings within the same compound. As I read the section, I understand that there cannot be any premises within the meaning of Section 2(5) (a) unless there is some building or part of a building or hut or part of a hut separately let out. A garden or a ground or a vacant plot of land cannot, if detached from a building or a hut, constitute premises within the meaning of the above Section. If, however, there are these things appertaining to any building or part of a building or any hut or part of a hut separately let, they would certainly be regarded as parts of the same premises.

In this view of the matter I am of opinion that the tenancy in this particular case is outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act and the learned Rent Controller improperly exercised his jurisdiction by fixing the standard rent of such a tenancy. So, the orders passed by both the courts below must be set aside.

It may be said that this view will cause hardship to tenants who have taken settlement of only vacant land from landlords at exorbitant rent within the town of Calcutta. This cannot, however, be helped because the legislature seems to have kept tenancies in respect of vacant lands only outside the operation of the Act.

In the result, the Rule is made absolute and the orders complained of are set aside. The application of the tenant-opposite party for fixation of standard rent stands dismissed. The Petitioner will get costs of the courts below from the opposite party, hearing fee being assessed at Rs. 15 in each of the courts below.

The Petitioner will also get costs of this Court from the opposite party, hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs.