http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RAJ KISHORE TEWARI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVINDARAM BHANSALI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/10/1963

BENCH:

ACT:    West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary  Provisions) Act, 1950 (Act 17 of 1950), s. 13 (2).--Determination of sub tenancy-Whether tenancy starts from the date of ejectment of the tenant of the first degree--Effect of s. 13 (2).

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant was a sub-tenant of S on a monthly  basis commencing  from  April 1, 1954.  S was the  tenant  of  the Respondent from September 15, 1943 on a monthly rental.   On June 16, 1955, the respondent obtained a decree of ejectment against S.  In view of sub-s(2) of s. 13 of the West  Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950,  the appellant  became  the tenant of the  respondent  after  the determination  of  the tenancy of S. The respondant  gave  a notice to the appellant asking him to deliver possession  of the premises on the expiry of the last day of April 122 1957,  since he being a statutory tenant had not  paid  rent since  June 16, 1955.  The respondant instituted a suit  for ejectment,  which  was decreed, and an appeal  to  the  High Court  by  the  appellant was unsuccessful.   On  appeal  by special leave, it was contended that the notice was  invalid for  under  the  law  the notice  must  be  to  require  the appellant  to deliver possession on the expiry of the  month of tenancy, that the tenancy was from the 16th of a month as the  decree for ejectment against S was passed on  June  16, 1955   and  that  this  notice  required  the  delivery   of possession on the expiry of the last day of April.     Held: The contention was untenable and rightly  rejected by the High Court.     The provisions of Sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 only lay  down that the sub-tenant would become the tenant of the  landlord if the tenancy in-chief is determined, on the same terms and conditions on which the sub-lessee would have held under the tenant    if  the  tenancy  of  the  tenant  had  not   been determined.  This means that the terms and conditions of the tenancy  between the erstwhile sub-tenant and  the  landlord continue to be the same which were the terms and  conditions of   the  sub-tenancy.   The  period  of   monthly   tenancy commencing  from the first of the month and expiring on  the last  day  of  the  month, was in no  way  affected  by  the provisions of Sub-s. (2) of s. (13) whose effect was  simply that  the  sub-tenant  instead of being  sub-tenant  of  the tenant  who had been ejected, got a direct  connection  with the landlord and became his tenant-in-chief.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 150  of 1963.      Appeal  by special leave from the judgment  and  decree dated  January 9, 1962 of the Calcutta High Court in  Appeal from Original Decree No. 48 of 1961.      N.C.   Chatterlee,  R.K.  Garg,  S.C.   Agarwal,   M.K. Rarnatnurthi and D.P. Singh, for the appellant.      M.C. Setalvad and B.P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.     October  10,  1963.  The  Judgment  of  the  Court   was delivered  by     RAGHUBAR DAYAL  J.--Raj   Kishore  Tewari, appellant  in  this appeal by special leave,  was  occupying certain  premises as sub-tenant of Susil  Chandra  Banerjee, under a registered lease dated April 10, 1954.  His  tenancy commenced from April 1, 1954. The rent fixed was Rs. 220 per mensem.  Subsequent- 123 ly  it was reduced to Rs. 205 by an agreement dated June  9, 1954.  The tenancy was monthly.     Susil  Chandra  Banerjee was the  tenant  of  Govindaram Bhansali from September 15, 1943, at a monthly rental of Rs. 153  plus  certain  other charges.  On June  16,  1955,  the landlord  obtained  a  decree  of  ejectment  against  Susil Chandra  Banerjee.   In view of sub-s. (2) of s. 13  of  the West  Bengal  Premises Rent Control  (Temporary  Provisions) Act,  1950 (Act XVII of 1950), hereinafter called  the  Act, the  appellant became the tenant of the landlord  after  the determination of the tenancy of Susil Chandra Banerjee.     On  March  19,  1957, the land-lord  respondent  gave  a notice to the appellant asking him to deliver possession  of the premises on the expiry of the last day of April 1957, on the ground that he, being the statutory tenant, had not paid rents  to  him since June 16, 1955, and, as  such,  was  not entitled  to any protection under the West  Bengal  Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act XII of 1956).   Subsequently, on June 10,  1957, the respondent instituted the suit for  ejectment of  the appellant from the premises.  The suit was  resisted by  the  appellant  on various  grounds.   His  defence  was however struck off due to certain default.  Ultimately,  the suit was decreed on December 15, 1959. An appeal to the High Court  was  unsuccessful.  The High Court  refused  to  give leave  to appeal to this Court.  Thereafter,  the  appellant obtained special leave from this Court and filed the appeal.     The  only  point  urged for the appellant  is  that  the notice  of  ejectment dated March 19, 1957, was  invalid  in view  of the fact that under the law the notice must  be  to require the appellant to deliver possession on the expiry of the month of tenancy, that the tenancy was from the 16th  of a  month as the decree for ejectment against the  tenant  of the first degree was passed on June 16, 1955, and that  this notice required the delivery of possession on the expiry  of the  last day of April.  We may say that this point was  not raised in the written statement.  It was however allowed  to be raised in the appellate Court but was repelled. 124     The  only point to determine in this appeal is the  date from  which  the  tenancy of  the  appellant  vis-a-vis  the respondent commenced.  The relevant portion of sub-s.(2)  of s. 13 of the Act is:                   "(2)   Where  any  premises  or  any  part               thereof  have been or has been sub-let  by  ’a               tenant  of  the first degree’ or by  a  tenant               inferior to a tenant  of the first degree’, as               defined in explanation to sub-section (1), and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

             the  sub-lease is binding on the  landlord  of               such last mentioned tenant, if the tenancy  of               such   tenant  in  either  case  is   lawfully               determined  otherwise  than  by  virtue  of  a               decree  in a suit obtained by the landlord  by               reason    of any of the grounds  specified  in               clause (h) of   the proviso to sub-section (1)               of  section  12,  the    sub-lessee  shall  be               deemed  to  be a tenant in   respect  of  such               premises or part, as the case  may be, holding               directly  under the landlord of    the  tenant               whose tenancy has been determined,   on  terms               and conditions on which the sub-lessee   would               have held under the tenant if the tenancy   of               the latter had not been so determined."     There  is  nothing  in  these  provisions  which  should persuade  us to hold, as urged for the appellant,  that  the sub-tenant becomes a tenant of the landlord from the date on which  the tenancy of the tenant against whom a  decree  for ejectment is passed is determined.  The provisions only  lay down  that  the sub-tenant would become the  tenant  of  the landlord if the tenancy-in-chief is determined lawfully.  On the  other  hand,  this  sub-section  lays  down  that   the subtenant  would  be tenant on the terms and  conditions  on which the sub-lessee would have held under the tenant if the tenancy  of the tenant had not been determined.  This  means that  the  terms and conditions of the tenancy  between  the erstwhile  sub-tenant  and the landlord continue to  be  the same which were the terms and conditions of the sub-tenancy. Such terms and conditions of the tenancy in the case of  the appellant  were  that he was to be a monthly tenant  on  the payment of a certain rent and that his tenancy was to 125 commence  from  the first day of April 1954.   It  is  clear therefore  that his tenancy was by the calendar  month.   It commenced  on the first day of the month and expired on  the last  day of the month.  This period of monthly tenancy  was in no way affected by the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s.  13 whose effect was simply this that the sub-tenant instead  of being  sub-tenant of the tenant who had been ejected, got  a direct   connection  with  the  landlord  and   became   his tenant-in-chief  or,  as the Act describes,  tenant  in  the first degree.  The statutory provision just brought about  a change  in the landlord of the sub-tenant.  The  proprietor- landlord took the place of the tenantin-chief from whom  the sub-tenant had secured the tenancy.     We  are  therefore of opinion that the  High  Court  was right  in  rejecting the contention of  the  appellant  with respect to the invalidity of the notice for ejectment  dated March 19, 1957.  The result is that the appeal fails and  is dismissed with costs.                                  Appeal dismissed.