TMI Blog1961 (2) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenancy, the appellant paid rent at the rate of ₹ 84,15,0,per month, under the second-tenancy at the rate of ₹ 180 per month and under the third tenancy at the rate of ₹ 225 per month. The tenancy was in respect of buildings used for manufacturing tin canisters and open land. On September 30, 1946, the Governor of Bengal issued the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, V of 1946, making certain provisions for control of rent of premises in the town of Calcutta. By s. 12 of the Ordinance, it was provided in so far as it is material that notwithstanding, anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act or the Indian Contract Act, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever not delivered by the appellant and he continued to pay the stipulated amount and the same was accepted by the respondents. In an application under s. 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, the Controller fixed the standard rent of the premises at ₹ 455 per month. After the enactment of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, another application was submitted by the appellant and the standard rent was reduced to ₹ 247,8,0. On October 10, 1950, the respondents served a notice upon the appellant requiring him to quit, vacate and deliver possession of the premises occupied , which the appellant was described as holding as monthly tenant , on the expiry of the 31st of Chaitra, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut to the appellant, but they were unable to obtain assistance of the court in view of the protection afforded to the appellant by the successive rent control Acts. In the meanwhile, the appellant continued to pay every month amounts equal to the contractual rent, and later the rent declared to be the statutory rent. Does the acceptance of the amounts paid by the appellant confer upon him the right of a tenant holding over within the meaning of s. 116 of the Transfer of Property Act? Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act in so far as it is material provides that if a lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to him and the lessor accepts rent from the lessee or otherwise assents t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession, a new tenancy comes into existence as is contemplated by s. 116, Transfer of Property Act, and unless there is an agreement to the contrary, such tenancy would be regarded as one from year to year or from month to month in accordance with the provisions of s. 106 of the Act. It was further observed in cases of tenancies relating to dwelling houses to which the Rent Restriction Acts apply, the tenant may enjoy a statutory immunity from eviction even after the lease has expired. The landlord cannot eject him except on specified grounds mentioned in the Acts themselves. In such circumstances, acceptance of rent by the landlord from a statutory tenant whose lease has already expired could not be regarded as evidence of a new a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory immunity. Apart from art express contract, conduct of the parties may undoubtedly justify an inference that after determination of the contractual tenancy, the landlord had entered into a fresh contract with the tenant, but whether the conduct justifies such an inference must always depend upon the facts of each case. Occupation of premises by a tenant whose tenancy is determined is by virtue of the protection granted by the statute and not because of any right arising from the contract which is determined. The statute protects his possession so long as the conditions which justify a lessor in obtaining an order of eviction against him do not exist. Once the prohibition against the exercise of jurisdiction by the court is removed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
