Case: Ganga Dutt Murarka Vs. Kartik Chandra Das &amp; Others

1. Of the premises relating to which this dispute arises - No. 5, Raja Rajkissen Street, Calcutta - the respondents are the owners and the appellant was a contractual tenant from June 15, 1917, till June 15, 1947, under three successive tenancies for 10 years each. Under the first tenancy, the appellant paid rent at the rate of Rs. 84-15-0 per month, under the second tenancy at the rate of Rs. 180 per month and under the third tenancy at the rate of Rs. 225 per month. The tenancy was in respect of buildings used for manufacturing "tin canisters" and open land. On September 30, 1946, the Governor of Bengal issued the Calcutta Rent Ordinance V of 1946, making certain provisions for control of rent of premises in the town of Calcutta. By S. 12 of the Ordinance, it was provided in so far as it is material that notwithstanding, anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act or the Indian Contract Act, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made as long as the tenant pays rent to the full extent allowable by the Ordinance and performs the conditions of the tenancy. By the proviso, the landlord was, notwithstanding the protection granted entitled, if the conditions specified therein were fulfilled, to obtain possession of the premises. This Ordinance was replaced by Act I of 1947 which contained substantially the same provisions. By the West Bengal Act V of 1948, the provisions of Ordinance V of 1946 and Act I of 1948, were continued. Thereafter, on December 1, 1948, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act XXXVIII of 1948 was brought into operation and by this Act, the West Bengal Act V of 1948 was repealed, but the protection granted to the tenants was continued. This Act was repealed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, and by S. 12 of the latter Act protection to tenants including tenants whose tenancies had expired, against eviction was granted by prohibiting courts from passing decrees or orders for recovery of possession of any premises in favour of landlords. It was provided by that Act that the landlord shall be entitled to obtain a decree in ejectment inter alia where the premises are reasonably required by him either for the purpose of building or rebuilding or for his own occupation.      2. By letter dated May 15, 1947, the respondents called upon the appellant to vacate and deliver possession on the expiry of the period of tenancy. Possession was however not delivered by the appellant and he continued to pay the stipulated amount and the same was accepted by the respondents. In an application under S. 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, the Controller fixed the standard rent of the premises at Rs. 455 per month. After the enactment of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, another application was submitted by the appellant and the standard rent was reduced to Rs. 247-8-0. On October 10, 1950, the respondents served a notice upon the appellant requiring him "to quit, vacate and deliver possession of the premises occupied", which the appellant was described as holding as "monthly tenant", on the expiry of the 31st of Chaitra, 1357 B. S., i.e., April 14, 1951. The ground for eviction, it was claimed, was that the premises were reasonably required by the landlords for putting up new buildings thereon. The appellant having failed to vacate the premises, the respondents sued in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for a decree in ejectment. The Court of Small Causes decreed the suit filed by the respondents. In appeal to the Special Bench, Court of Small Causes, the decree passed by the court of first instance was reversed. The appellate court held that by acceptance of rent after determination of the tenancy in June, 1947, the appellant continued to be "a tenant holding over" and as the purpose of the tenancy was manufacturing, it could be determined only by a notice of six months, expiring with the year of tenancy and as no such notice was served, the tenancy was not determined and the suit was liable to fail. In appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, the decree passed by the Special Bench was reversed and the decree passed by the court of first instance was restored. With certificate of fitness under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution this appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order of the High Court.

Reasoning:
It is, however, well settled that where a contractual tenancy to which the rent control legislation applied has expired by efflux of time or by determination by notice to quit and the tenant continues in possession of the premises, acceptance of rent from the tenant by the landlord after the expiration or determination of the contractual tenancy will not afford ground for holding that the landlord has assented to a new contractual tenancyOf course, there is no prohibition against a landlord entering into a fresh contract of tenancy with a tenant whose right of occupation is determined and who remains in occupation by virtue of the statutory immunity. Apart from an express contract, conduct of the parties may undoubtedly justify an inference that after determination of the contractual tenancy, the landlord had entered into a fresh contract with the tenant, but whether the conduct justifies such an inference must always depend upon the facts of each case. Occupation of premises by a tenant whose tenancy is determined is by virtue of the protection granted by the statute and not because of any right arising from the contract which is determined. The statute protects his possession so long as the conditions which justify a lessor in obtaining an order of eviction against him do not exist. Once the prohibition against the exercise of jurisdiction by the court is removed, the right to obtain possession by the lessor under the ordinary law springs into action and the exercise of the lessors right to evict the tenant will not, unless the statute provides otherwise, be conditioned6. The High Court was in our judgment right in holding that by merely accepting rent from the appellant and by failing to take action against him, the appellant did not acquire the rights of a tenant holding over. It is true that in the notice dated October 10, 1950, the appellant is described as a "monthly tenant," but that is not indicative of conduct justifying an inference that a fresh contractual tenancy had come into existence. Within the meaning of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, the appellant was a "tenant" and by calling the appellant a tenant the respondents did not evince an intention to treat him as a contractual tenant. The use of the adjective "monthly" also was not indicative of a contractual relation. The tenancy of the appellant was determined by efflux of time and subsequent occupation by him was not in pursuance of any contract express or implied, but was by virtue of the protection given by the successive statutes. This occupation did not confer any rights upon the appellant and was not required to be determined by a notice prescribed by S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act