Dismissed¶58

Raj Kishore Tewari v. Govindaram Bhansali

Supreme Court10 Oct 19631963 INSC 208 · [1964] 5 S.C.R. 1211963 INSC 208

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Raj Kishore Tewari v. Govinda Ram Bhansali, Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1963, Supreme Court of India, decided October 10, 1963 (Raghubar Dayal J.; Gajendragadkar, Subba Rao, Wanchoo, Shah JJ.). Statutory tenancy of sub-tenant under s. 13(2), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, after ejectment of tenant of the first degree on June 16, 1955; commencement date of tenancy; monthly tenancy runs by the calendar month (first to last day); validity of notice to quit dated March 19, 1957 expiring April 30, 1957; West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; appeal by special leave from Calcutta High Court (AOD No. 48 of 1961, judgment dated January 9, 1962); appeal dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with costs (costs to the respondent). ¶58

Raj Kishore Tewari versus Govindaram Bhansali — Supreme Court (1964) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs (costs to the respondent).

¶58

Issue for consideration

From what date did the tenancy of the erstwhile sub-tenant (appellant) vis-a-vis the landlord (respondent) commence after the determination of the tenant of the first degree's tenancy -- i.e., whether it started from the date of the ejectment decree (June 16, 1955, the 16th of the month) or continued to run by the calendar month on the terms of the subsisting sub-tenancy. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

Nothing in sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 supports the contention that the sub-tenant becomes the landlord's tenant from the date on which the tenancy of the tenant against whom the ejectment decree is passed is determined; the sub-section keeps the erstwhile sub-lessee's tenancy on the same terms and conditions as the sub-tenancy.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The period of the monthly tenancy, commencing on the first day of the month and expiring on the last day, was in no way affected by sub-s. (2) of s. 13; the provision merely substituted the proprietor-landlord in the place of the ejected tenant-in-chief, changing only the landlord of the sub-tenant.

¶57

Key takeaways

The statutory provision effected only a change in the landlord of the sub-tenant: the proprietor-landlord took the place of the tenant-in-chief from whom the sub-tenant had secured the tenancy.ratio¶57
The High Court was right in rejecting the appellant's contention that the notice of ejectment dated March 19, 1957 was invalid; the notice requiring possession on the expiry of the last day of April 1957 was valid because the tenancy ran by the calendar month.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 -- s. 13(2) -- Determination of sub-tenancy -- Commencement of the erstwhile sub-tenant's tenancy vis-a-vis the landlord. Held: sub-s. (2) of s. 13 does not make the sub-tenant the landlord's tenant from the date the tenant of the first degree's tenancy is determined; the erstwhile sub-lessee holds on the same terms and conditions as under the subsisting sub-tenancy. Where the sub-tenancy was a monthly tenancy commencing April 1, 1954 and running from the first day to the last day of the month, that period was in no way affected by sub-s. (2) of s. 13, despite the ejectment decree against the head tenant on June 16, 1955; the provision's sole effect was a change in the landlord, the proprietor-landlord taking the place of the tenant-in-chief. A notice dated March 19, 1957 requiring delivery of possession on the expiry of the last day of April 1957 was therefore valid. Appeal dismissed with costs (Raghubar Dayal J.; Gajendragadkar, Subba Rao, Wanchoo and Shah JJ.).

¶1

5 S.C.R.

¶2

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶3

121

¶4

was made. It would be a matter for consideration 1963 -- at the appropriate time whether there can be any exception to this general rule that the entire property Bhagwati Prasad sold must be pre-empted by the pre-emptor in his Sah suit. v.

¶5

1963 -- Bhagwati Prasad Sah v. Bhagwati Prasad s: h a Raghubar Dayal J

¶6

· . . Bhagwati Prasad I would therefore rest my dec1S1on on the facts s: h that the sale of the lease-hold interest in land is not a pre-emptible and that the super-structure of the house Raghubar Dayal is also not pre-emptible and that therefore the plaintiff- J pre-emptor cannot pre-empt the sale of the property · sold. I therefore agree that the appeal be allowed, the decrees of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court be set aside and that of the trial Court be restored and that the appellants would have their costs throughout.

Appeal allowed.

RAJ KISHORE TEWARI

1963

GOVINDARAM BHANSALI

(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.)

¶14

October JO

¶15

West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (Act 17of1950), s. 13 (2).-Determination of sub tenancyWhether tenancy starts from the date of ejectment of the tenant of the first degree-Effect of s. 13 (2).

¶16

• /

¶17

¶18

The appellant was a sub-tenant of S on a monthly basis commencing from April I, 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 posse\sion of the premises on the expiry of the last day of April

¶19

[1964]

¶20

122

¶21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶22

¶23

1963

¶24

1963 1957, since he being a statutory tenant had not paid rent since June 16, 1955. The respondant instituted a suit for ejectment, Raj Kishore which was decreed, and an appeal to the High Court by the appellant Tewari was unsuccessful. On appeal by special leave, it was contended that the notice was invalid for under the law the notice must be v. to require the appellant to deliver possession on the expiry of the Govinda Ram month of tenancy, that the tenancy was from the 16th of a month Bhansali 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.

¶25

Held: The contention was untenable and rightly rejected by the High Court.

¶26

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-inchief.

¶27

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1963.

¶28

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.

¶29

N.C. Chatterjee, R.K. Garg, S.C. Agarwal, M.K. Ramamurthi and D.P. Singh, for the appellant.

¶30

M.C. Setalvad and B.P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.

¶31

October 10, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶32

Raghubar Dayal RAGHUHAR DAYAL J.-Raj Kishore Tewari, J. 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-

¶33

5 S.C.R.

¶34

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

123

•

ly it was reduced to Rs. 205 by an agreement dated June 9, 1954. The tenancy was monthly.

¶39

1963

¶40

Raj Kishore Tewari v.

¶41

Susil Chandra Banerjee was the tenant of Govinda- Tewari ram Bhansali from September 15, 1943, at a monthly v. rental of Rs. 153 plus certain other charges. On Govinda Ram June 16, 1955, the landlord obtained a decree of eject- Bhansa/i ment against Susi! Chandra Banerjee. In view of sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Raghubar Dayal Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (Act XVII J. of 1950), hereinafter called the Act, the appellant became the tenant of the landlord after the determination of the tenancy of Susi! Chandra Banerjee.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

[1964]

¶45

124

¶46

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶47

1963

¶48

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:

¶49

Raj Kishore Tewari

¶50

¶51

"(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 (I), and 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 (I) 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."

¶52

Govinda Ram Bhansa/i

¶53

Raghubar Daya/ J.

¶54

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-tenancv. Such terms and conditions of the tenancy in tlie 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

¶55

5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶56

125

¶57

commence from the first day of April 1954. It is 1963 clear therefore that his tenancy was by the calendar month. It commenced on the first day of the month Raj Kishore and expired on the last day of the month. This Tewari period of monthly tenancy was in no way affected v. by the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 13 whose effect Govinda Ram was simply this that the sub-tenant instead of being Bhansa/i - sub-tenant of the tenant who had been ejected, got a direct connection with the landlord and became Raghubar Dayal his tenant-in-chief or, as the Act describes, tenant in J. 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.

¶58

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.

¶59

Appeal dismissed.

¶60

¶61

THE GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. v.

¶62

THE LIFE INSURANCE COR_PORATION OF INDIA

¶63

(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAo, K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.)

¶64

1963

¶65

October 18

¶66

Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), s. 7(1). If amounts representing dividends declared fall within "assets and liabilities" of controlled business--Compensation and paid up capital allocable for controlled business-Tribunals Jurisdiction to set off-Life Insurance Corporation Rules, 1956, r. 12A (iv) and (vi)Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938)-Whether precludes challenge of certified balance sheets-Interest on compensation.

¶67

On the enactment of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, providing for the nationalisation of life insurance business, the

Raj Kishore Tewari v. Govindaram Bhansali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishore Tewari v. Govindaram Bhansali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Yakoob versus K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others

Corporation of Calcutta versus Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.

H.H. the Maharana Sahib Shri Bhagwat Singh Bahadur of Udaipur versus the State of Rajasthan and Others

Bhagwati Prasad Sah and Others versus Bhagwati Prasad Sah and Another

Makhan Singh Tarsikka versus the State of Punjab

The General Assurance Society Ltd. versus the Life Insurance Corporation of India