Raj Kishore Tewari vs Govindaram Bhansali

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1963

Decision Date: 10 October 1963

Coram: Raghubar Dayal J.

The case was titled Raj Kishore Tewari versus Govindaram Bhansali and was decided by the Supreme Court of India on the tenth day of October in the year 1963. The judgment was authored by a bench of the Supreme Court and recorded under the citation of Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1963, which was an appeal by special leave from a decree dated the ninth of January, 1962, pronounced by the Calcutta High Court in the appeal from Original Decree No. 48 of 1961. The substantive provision under consideration was Section 13, sub‑section (2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, also referred to as Act 17 of 1950. The principal question involved the determination of the commencement of a sub‑tenancy, the legal effect of the tenant of first degree being ejected, and the operation of Section 13 (2) with respect to the rights and obligations of the sub‑tenant after such ejection.

According to the factual matrix, the appellant, Raj Kishore Tewari, occupied the premises in question as a sub‑tenant of a person identified as S, whose full name was Susil Chandra Banerjee. The sub‑tenancy began on the first day of April, 1954, and the rent was initially fixed at Rs. 220 per month. Subsequently, by an agreement dated the ninth of June, 1954, the monthly rent was reduced to Rs. 205. The tenancy was expressly monthly, meaning it commenced on the first day of each month and terminated on the last day of the same month. The original tenant, S, held a lease from the respondent, Govindaram Bhansali, commencing on the fifteenth of September, 1943, also on a monthly basis, with a rent of Rs. 153 plus additional charges. On the sixteenth of June, 1955, the respondent obtained a decree of ejectment against S, thereby terminating S’s tenancy. Pursuant to sub‑section (2) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, the appellant, as the sub‑tenant, succeeded to the position of tenant of the respondent upon the determination of S’s tenancy. The respondent subsequently served a notice on the appellant demanding surrender of possession of the premises on the expiry of the last day of April, 1957, on the ground that the appellant, as a statutory tenant, had failed to pay rent since the date of the decree, i.e., the sixteenth of June, 1955. The respondent instituted an ejectment suit, which resulted in a decree for eviction, and the appellant’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

On further appeal by special leave, the appellant contended that the notice issued by the respondent was invalid because, under the law, a notice must require the tenant to deliver possession at the expiry of the month of tenancy, and the tenancy, according to the appellant, should be deemed to have begun on the sixteenth of the month when the decree of ejectment against S was passed. Accordingly, the appellant argued that the notice demanding possession on the last day of April was erroneous. The Supreme Court examined these contentions and held them untenable, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court explained that sub‑section (2) of Section 13 merely provides that, upon the determination of the tenancy in‑chief, the sub‑tenant steps into the place of the tenant and becomes the direct tenant of the landlord, retaining the same terms and conditions that previously governed the sub‑tenancy. Consequently, the monthly tenancy continued to commence on the first day of each month and to terminate on the last day of that month, unaffected by the operation of sub‑section (2). The effect of the provision was simply to transform the sub‑tenant’s status from a sub‑tenant to a tenant‑in‑chief without altering the periodic nature of the tenancy.

The appeal, recorded as Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1963, was listed on the record as appearing on the 48th day of 1961. Counsel for the appellant comprised N C Chatterlee, R K Garg, S C Agarwal, M K Rarnatnurthi and D P Singh. Counsel for the respondent were M C Setalvad and B P Maheshwari. The judgment was delivered on 10 October 1963 by Justice Raghu Bar Dayal. The appellant, Raj Kishore Tewari, had taken occupation of certain premises as a sub‑tenant of Susil Chandra Banerjee under a lease that had been registered on 10 April 1954. The sub‑tenancy was stipulated to commence on 1 April 1954, with a rent originally fixed at Rs 220 per month. By an agreement dated 9 June 1954 the rent was subsequently reduced to Rs 205 per month, and the tenancy continued on a monthly basis. The principal tenant, Susil Chandra Banerjee, held the lease from the landlord, Govindaram Bhansali, beginning on 15 September 1943, at a monthly rent of Rs 153 together with certain additional charges. On 16 June 1955 the landlord obtained a decree for the ejectment of Banerjee. In accordance with subsection (2) of section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (Act XVII of 1950), thereafter referred to as “the Act”, the appellant’s status changed from sub‑tenant to tenant directly under the landlord as a result of the determination of Banerjee’s tenancy. Subsequently, on 19 March 1957 the respondent‑landlord served a notice upon the appellant requiring him to surrender possession of the premises by the last day of April 1957. The notice was premised on the assertion that, as a statutory tenant, the appellant had failed to pay rent since 16 June 1955 and therefore was not entitled to protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act XII of 1956). On 10 June 1957 the respondent instituted an ejectment suit against the appellant. The appellant opposed the suit on several grounds, but his defence was struck out for default. The suit concluded with a decree in favour of the respondent on 15 December 1959. An appeal to the Calcutta High Court was dismissed and leave to appeal to this Court was denied. The appellant thereafter obtained special leave from this Court and filed the present appeal. The appellant’s sole argument before this Court was that the notice dated 19 March 1957 was invalid because, according to law, a notice must demand surrender of possession at the expiry of the month of tenancy; he contended that his tenancy began on the 16th of a month, following the decree of 16 June 1955 against the first‑degree tenant, and therefore the notice’s demand for delivery of possession by the end of April was improper. This contention was not raised in the written statement, although it was permitted to be raised in the appellate court where it was rejected. The only question for determination in this appeal is the precise date from which the appellant’s tenancy in relation to the respondent commenced. The relevant excerpt of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act states: “(2) Where any premises or any part thereof have been or”.

In reviewing the statutory provision, the Court noted that sub‑section (2) of section 13 provides that when premises have been sub‑let either by a tenant of the first degree or by a tenant who is subordinate to a tenant of the first degree, as defined in the explanation to sub‑section (1), the sub‑lease binds the landlord of the latter tenant. The provision further states that if the tenancy of that tenant is lawfully terminated by means other than a decree obtained by the landlord on any of the grounds specified in clause (h) of the proviso to sub‑section (1) of section 12, then the sub‑lessee shall be deemed to be a tenant of the premises, holding directly under the landlord of the tenant whose tenancy was terminated, and shall occupy the premises on the same terms and conditions that would have applied to the sub‑lessee under the original tenant had that tenancy not been terminated. The Court observed that nothing in these provisions supports the appellant’s argument that the sub‑tenant becomes a tenant of the landlord only from the date on which a decree of ejectment against the original tenant is passed. Rather, the language of the statute merely indicates that the sub‑tenant assumes the status of tenant of the landlord when the tenancy‑in‑chief is lawfully determined. Moreover, the subsection expressly provides that the sub‑tenant’s tenancy continues on the terms and conditions that would have governed the sub‑tenancy had the original tenancy not been terminated. Consequently, the terms governing the appellant’s tenancy remained identical to those of his former sub‑tenancy. In the appellant’s case, those terms stipulated that he was to occupy the premises as a monthly tenant, paying a specified rent, with the tenancy commencing on the first day of April 1954. This arrangement meant that his tenancy ran from the first day of each calendar month to the last day of the same month. The Court held that this monthly tenancy was not altered by the operation of sub‑section (2) of section 13; the effect of that provision was simply to replace the original tenant‑in‑chief with the landlord as the direct lessor, thereby converting the sub‑tenant into a tenant‑in‑first‑degree. The statutory rule therefore effected only a change in the identity of the landlord, with the proprietor‑landlord stepping into the position of the former tenant‑in‑chief from whom the sub‑tenant had originally derived his right to occupy. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the High Court was correct in rejecting the appellant’s contention that the notice of ejectment dated 19 March 1957 was invalid. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the order of dismissal stood.