In a significant ruling by the High Court, the case of rights of spouses of deceased original tenants in non-residential premises was addressed. The judgment highlights a legislative omission and stresses the necessity for a substantive amendment to rectify the exclusion of spouses from the second proviso of the statute. #LegalRights #HighCourt
Facts
- The High Court framed two points for determination: Whether the premises were let out for non-residential purposes as per Section 3(f) of the Act.
- The spouse of the appellant was a tenant of a shop on the ground floor of the premises since May 1988 and paid a monthly rent of Rs 235.95.
- An interest-free deposit of Rs 12,000 was made by the original tenant when entering the premises.
- The tenant passed away in July 2002 leaving behind the appellant and two sons.
- The landlord filed a suit for eviction in 2010 claiming that the tenant failed to pay enhanced rent as per the amended Act since July 2001.
- A demand was sent to the tenant in December 2002 for the outstanding payments.
- The main issue raised was whether the spouse of a deceased tenant is protected from eviction in case of premises let out for non-residential purposes under Section 2(g) of the Act.
- The trial Judge ordered the defendants to pay arrears amounting to Rs 27,887.10.
- Judge passed a decree for eviction on the ground of default in rent payment
- The landlord addressed notice to the heirs of the original tenant on 30 July 2010
- Suit for eviction filed by the landlord on 4 August 2017
- The landlord claimed that heirs had no right to continue possession after five years from original tenant’s death
- Appeal filed before the High Court against the eviction decree
Analysis
- The High Court observed an inadvertent omission in the statute regarding the rights of spouses of deceased original tenants in non-residential premises.
- The High Court recognized a case of casus omissus with regard to the exclusion of spouses of deceased original tenants from the second proviso of the statute.
- The High Court emphasized the need for legislative amendment to rectify the omission and protect the rights of spouses of deceased original tenants in non-residential premises.
- The High Court concluded that judicial intervention was not feasible to correct the legislative omission, highlighting the necessity for a substantive amendment to the second proviso of the statute.
- The High Court rejected the appellant’s claim based on the existing statutory provisions and stressed that the remedy lay in legislative action.
- A tenant is defined as any person who pays or would pay the rent for premises, including those in possession after the tenancy ends.
- After a tenant’s death, for up to five years, the protection extends to specific family members who lived with the tenant, were dependent on them, and do not own or occupy residential premises.
- In case of non-residential premises, the protection also includes certain family members who lived with the tenant and were dependant on them or a person authorized by the tenant in possession.
- The time limit of five years does not apply to the spouse of a deceased tenant who met specific conditions.
- The spouse of a deceased tenant is not included in the right of preference for tenancy in a fresh agreement under the second proviso, unlike other specific family members.
- A right of preference for tenancy in a new agreement is granted to certain family members of the deceased tenant who lived with them, were dependent, and did not own or occupy residential premises, subject to paying fair rent.
- Landlord has no intention of executing a fresh tenancy
- Lawmakers should address the omission in the provisio
- Appellant has occupied the premises for over seventeen years after tenant’s death
- Trial Court’s judgment, upheld by High Court, provides no reason to entertain appeal for eviction decree
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Decision
- Appellant is granted time to vacate the premises until 30 June 2020.
- Appellant must file the usual undertaking in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today.
- If the undertaking is not filed, the decree will become executable immediately.
- No costs order is issued.
- A copy of the judgment will be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal.
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Case Title: NASIMA NAQI Vs. TODI TEA COMPANY LTD.
Case Number: C.A. No.-009052-009052 / 2019
