West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 – ss.2(a),(b), (c) and 3(2) – Appellant-Corporation purchased immovable properties including a factory with land belonging to a company – For purpose of setting up a small-scale industrial zone, the Corporation constructed an administrative block, after demolishing the existing structure, divided the area into small plots – Respondent no.1 was allotted three plots of land – Prescribed authority terminated the lease deed in accordance with s.3(2) of 1976 Act r/w r.3(1), 1976 Rules for violation of lease deed, i.e. for not taking steps for construction of the factory building – Order upheld by Appellate Authority – High Court held that the 1976 Act did not apply to the premises in question as Corporation is not a government undertaking and the premises is not a government premises – Held: Appellant is a “Government undertaking” as defined in s.2(b) – Bare land has not been independently included in the definition of “premises” – Thus, if bare land is let out by the government and/or government undertaking to its tenant, the incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed by the provisions of 1976 Act and as such a tenant cannot be evicted by taking aid of the provisions of the Act – Plots leased to respondent no.1 did not contain any structures – When eviction proceedings were initiated, admittedly, the land in question did not contain any structures – Material date is the date of initiation of eviction proceedings – Eviction proceeding was in respect of these plots of land and not the entire property purchased by the Corporation – Premises in question does not come within the definition of s.2(a) – Eviction proceedings initiated by the appellant against respondent no.1 under the 1976 Act was without jurisdiction – Appellants at liberty to seek eviction of respondent nos. 1 & 2 from the land in question under 1962 Act – West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy and Regulation) Rules, 1976 – r.3(1) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Companies Act,1956 – s.617 – West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 – Interpretation of Statutes.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1.1 The appellant-company is a “Government undertaking” as defined in Section 2(b) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. The term “Government premises” is defined in Section 2(a) as any premises which is owned by the State Government or by a Government undertaking but does not include the official residence of any person authorized to occupy the premises in consideration of the office which he holds under the State Government or a Government undertaking for the time being. The expression “premises” is defined in Section 2(c) of the Act. Therefore, a premises can be regarded as “Government premises” only when it satisfies the definition of “Government premises” under Section 2(a) of the Act read conjointly with the definition of “premises” under Section 2(c) of the Act. Government premises defined in Section 2(a) cannot be read in isolation of the definition of “premises” under Section 2(c) of the Act. If the definition of “Government premises” appearing in Section 2(a) of the Act is read conjointly with the definition of “premises” appearing in Section 2(c) of the said Act, it not only includes a building or a part of it or a hut or a part of it but also includes a seat in a room, let separately, and also includes the gardens, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant thereto together with the furniture, all fittings and fixtures provided for the use of the tenant in such building, hut or a seat in a room let separately. Thus, when a seat in a room of a Government premises is let out to a tenant, certainly it will be a Government premises. Again, if a seat in a room is let out together with the gardens; grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to a seat in a room, such tenancy will be of a “Government premises”. The expression “includes” is used in two places of the definition of “premises” in Section 2(c) and the expression “includes” which was used for the second time in the said definition without any doubt was included to expand the ambit of “Government premises” so as to attract the provisions of the said Act. The expression “appurtenant to it” carries special significance. The definition of “premises” cannot be read bereft of the expression “appurtenant to it”. The expression “appurtenant” in the context means ‘relating to’, ‘usually enjoyed’, ‘occupied with’ or ‘adjoining’. Therefore, if a garden, ground, or an out-house is let out along with building or hut or a seat in a room, such a garden, ground or an out-house becomes part of the “premises”. However, bare land has not been independently included in the definition of “premises”. Therefore, if bare land is let out by the government and/or the government undertaking to its tenant, the incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed by the provisions of the Act and as such a tenant cannot be evicted by taking aid of the provisions of the Act. [Paras 22-26] [218-A-H; 219-A-F]
1.2 When the eviction proceedings were initiated, admittedly, the land in question did not contain any structures. If the bare land is let out by the government undertaking and it continues to be a bare land as on the date of initiation of eviction proceedings, the incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed by the provisions of the Act and such a tenant cannot be evicted by taking aid of the provisions of the Act. The material date is the date of initiation of the eviction proceedings. The subject matter of this appeal continues to be a bare land as on the date of initiation of the proceedings. The plots leased did not contain any structures. The eviction proceedings was in respect of these plots of land and not the entire property purchased by the Corporation from Bengal Potteries Limited. The lease was in respect of three plots of land which did not contain any building and these plots of land do not satisfy the requirements of definition of “Government premises” within the meaning of Section 2(a) read with Section 2(c) of the Act. The eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation against respondent No.1 under the Act was without jurisdiction. The appellantCorporation is a government undertaking within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. The premises in question does not come within the definition of Section 2(a) of the Act. The appellants are reserved liberty to seek eviction of respondent Nos.1 and
2 from the land in question under West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962. [Paras 29, 3134] [220-C-H; 221-A-E]
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.