West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – sub-s.8 of s.5 (Incorporated vide Amendment Act No.14 of 2001) – Landlord filed application under the Act of 1997 for eviction of the respondenttenant on the ground that the tenant had defaulted in payment of his share of municipal tax as an occupier under the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – Application dismissed by the trial Court – Dismissal upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: With amendment to the Act of 1997 with incorporation of sub-s.8 of s.5, the obligation to pay municipal taxes as an occupier of the premises fell upon the tenant – In instant case, respondent-tenant nowhere denied in any specific terms that the share of municipal taxes demanded was disproportionate or excessive or otherwise unauthorised in law – Furthermore, default on the part of the respondent-tenant was clear and evident – The obligation to pay municipal taxes on the tenant being over and above the obligation to pay the rent by virtue of the provisions of Section 5(8) of the 1997 Act, the High Court could not have imposed on the landlord the requirement of obtaining a formal order of enhancement of rent from the Rent Controller – Thus, application filed for eviction is allowed – Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – ss.230 and 231 – Municipal tax assessment when premises is occupied by more than one tenant – Held: Assessment of a part of premises in occupation of different tenants for municipal tax is not contemplated under the 1980 Act – In fact, from the provisions of s.230 of the Act, it is clear that the person to be assessed to tax is the person “primarily liable to pay” i.e. the owner who is further vested with the right to recover the portion of the tax paid by him on behalf of the tenant – Thus, the municipal taxes would be a part of the “rent” payable by the tenant to the landlord – Besides, the Act provides that in event of any default on the part of the owner to pay the tax the rent payable by the tenant(s) is liable to be attached.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, under the tenancy agreement, municipal taxes were included in the monthly rent payable and any enhancement thereof was to result in enhancement of the monthly rent also. With the amendment made to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and upon incorporation of sub-section (8) of Section 5, the obligation to pay municipal taxes as an occupier of the premises fell upon the tenant. The relevant clauses in the rent agreement therefore stood superseded by the statutory obligation cast on the tenant by the amendment to the Act. [Para 8] [522-F-G]
2. In the present case following the enhancement of municipal taxes by the Municipal Corporation in respect of the suit property an apportionment of the share of each tenant was made by the landlord and a notice to pay was served on the respondent-tenant. In his reply, the respondent-tenant did not dispute his liability to pay his share of the municipal tax and had sought for a reconsideration/review. [Para 9] [522-H; 523-A-B]
3. The argument advanced that the landlord cannot apportion the municipal taxes among different tenants if the premises is to be occupied by more than one tenant and it is the Municipal Corporation who is the authority to separately assess the tax payable by each tenant does not find any support from the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. While the provisions of the 1980 Act make it very clear that an occupier as distinguished from the owner i.e. ‘person primarily liable’ is entitled to pre-assessment notice and to participate in the assessment proceedings and also to question the same by way of an appeal, etc. assessment of a part of the premises in occupation of a tenant or different parts of such premises in occupation of different tenants is not contemplated under the 1980 Act. Rather, from the provisions of Section 230 of the 1980 Act, it is clear that the person to be assessed to tax is the person primarily liable to pay i.e. the owner who is vested with the right to recover the portion of the tax paid by him on behalf of the tenant, if required, proportionately to the extent that the value of the area occupied bears to the value of the total area of the property. Under the 1980 Act, in the event of any default on the part of the owner to pay the tax the rent payable by the tenant(s) is liable to be attached. [Paras 10 and 12] 523-C-D; 524-H; 525-A-C]
4. In the present case, default on the part of the respondenttenant is clear and evident. The obligation to pay municipal taxes on the tenant being over and above the obligation to pay the rent by virtue of the provisions of Section 5(8) of the 1997 Act, the High Court could not have imposed on the landlord the requirement of obtaining a formal order of enhancement of rent from the Rent Controller. [Para 13] [525-C-D]
Calcutta Gujarati Education Society and Another v. Calcutta Municipal Corpn. and Others
(2003) 10 SCC 533 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 915
– referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.