PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD.versusPROTOS ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD.

                     [2010] 3 S.C.R. 847


                PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD.                               A
                                v.
      PROTOS ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD.
           (Civil Appeal No. 2763 of 2010)

                       MARCH 26, 2010
                                                                     B
      [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                   SHARMA, JJ.]

    West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - ss. 17 (4A)
and 20 - Revision of - 'Fair rent' - Determination of - Where        c
a tenancy subsists for twenty years or more in respect of
premises constructed in or before the year 1984 and used for
commercial purpose - Whether automatic or to be determined
by Rent Controller - Held: Under s. 17(4A) there is no
automatic fixation of fair rent - An order in this regard is         D
required to be passed by Rent Controller on the basis of an
application filed -West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules,
1999 - r. 8- Rent Control and Tenancy.
     Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of a statutory
provision - Legislative intent - Determination of - Held: A          E
statutory provision to be read as a whole keeping in view other
relevant provisions, to correctly arrive at the legislative intent
- Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which
is plain and unambiguous - It is not proper for courts to add
words to a provision and evolve some legislative intent, not         F
found in the statute.
    The question for consideration before this Court was
whether the fair rent in respect of a tenancy which
subsists for 20 years or more in respect of the premises
constructed in or before the year 1984 and used for                  G
commercial purpose is required to be determined by the
Rent Controller or whether the same would stand
automatically determined under sub-section 4A of
Section 17 r/w Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises
                              ~7                                     H
    848      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A Tenancy Act, 1997.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. A cardinal principle of statutory
  interpretation is that a provision in a statute must be read
B as a whole and not in isolation, ignoring the other
  provisions of that statute. While dealing with a statutory
  instrument, one cannot be allowed to pick and choose.
  It will be grossly unjust if the court allows a person to
  single out and avail the benefit of a provision from a
C chain of provisions which is favourable to him. A
  provision in a statute ought not to be read in isolation.
  On the contrary, a statute must be read as an integral
  whole keeping in view the other provisions which may
  be relevant to the provision in question in order to
o correctly arrive at the legislative intent behind the
  provision in question. [Paras 13 and 15) [857-E-F; 858-E-
  F]

         Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC 409,
    followed.
E
        SAIL v. S.U. T.N.I. Sangam and Ors. 2009 (10) SCALE
    416, relied on.

       1.2. If a statutory provision is enacted by the
F legislature in a certain manner, the only reasonable
  interpretation which can be resorted to by the courts is
  that such was the intention of the legislature and that the
  provision was consciously enacted in that manner. The
  court cannot read anything into a statutory provision
  which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed
G in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative
  intent. If the language of the enactment is clear and
  unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add
  any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not
  found in the statute. [Para18] [859-G-H; 860-A-B]
H
PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. v. PROTOS ENGINEERING 849
             COMPANY PVT. LTD.

    Ansa/ Properties Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana       A
(2009) 3 sec 553, relied on.

     2.1. The present case involves an interpretation of
Section 17 (4A) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,
1997. It will not be appropriate to read sub-section 4A of     8
Section 17 ignoring the other relevant provisions. Section
18 of the Act which speaks about revision of the fair rent
employs the words "automatically increased" in
contradistinction to the word "determined" used in
Section 17(4A). The use of different terminology in the two    C
Sections thus indicates that the legislative intent was to
lay down different modes for fixation of the rent under the
two Sections. [Para 15] [858-F-G]

     2.2. A plain reading of Section 20 of the Act would
show that Section 20 allows the landlord to only give a        D
notice of his intention to increase the rent, which
becomes due and recoverable from the month or period
of tenancy next after the expiry of thirty days from the
date on which the notice_ is given. The requirement of
giving by the landlord a notice of intention to increase the   E
rent instead of a notice of increase of rent and the period
of one month which has been allowed before the
increased rent becomes due and recoverable from the
tenant by the landlord sufficiently indicate that the
legislature did not intend to make the rent fixed by the       F
landlord automatically applicable without any reference
to the Rent Controller. [Para 16] [858-H; 859-A-C]

     2.3. It is not correct to say that under sub-section 4A
of Section 17, there is automatic fixation of the fair rent
without any reference to the Rent Controller. Section 17       G
as it stands today, consists of a number of sub-sections.
Sub-sections 4A and 4B were both inserted in Section 17
by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act,
2002 with retrospective effect from 10.07 .2001. Sub-
section (1) of Section 17 clearly states that the Controller   H
    850    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A shall be the authority to fix the rent in respect of any
  premises in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
  Sub-section 4A of Section 17 lays down the mode for the
  determination of fair rent where a tenancy subsists for
  twenty years or more in respect of the premises
B constructed in or before the year 1984 and used for
  commercial purpose. [Para 17) (859-C-F]

       2.4. Sub-section 4A of Section 17 employs the word
  'determine'. All the sub-sections included in Section 17
C are independent provisions laying down different criteria
  on the fulfillment of which an application could be filed
  before the Rent Controller praying for increasing the fair
  rent. Section 17 lays down different types of causes of
  action as to when such an increase could be sought for.
  Sub-section (1) of Section 17 makes it crystal clear that
D on the happening and fulfillment of the criteria laid down
  in each of the cause of action, an application would be
  required to be filed before the Rent Controller who would
  then determine as to what would be the fair rent.
  Although, it could only be a case of mathematical
E calculation, yet an order in that regard is to be passed by
  the Rent Controller on the basis of an application filed
  before it by determining the quantum of such fair rent.
  (Paras 19 and 20) (860-C; 861-A-C)

F       Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Rly. v. T.R.
    Che/lappan (1976) 3 SCC 190, relied on.
       2.5. In case there is a case of deemed increase of fair
  rent or an automatic increase, still somebody would have
  to determine that it has so increased and that authority
G is definitely the Rent Controller who could exercise the
  jurisdiction only when he receives an application. Unless
  an application is received in that regard, nobody would
  know that in fact a case for increase of fair rent has
  accrued or is sought for by the concerned party. [Para
H 21] (861-D-E]
PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. v. PROTOS ENGINEERING 851
             COMPANY PVT. LTD.
     2.6. It cannot be said that sub-section 4A of Section        A
17 was sought to be brought in by way of an exception
to the general rule of Section 17. Had the legislature
intended otherwise, it would have specifically, in its
wisdom, made sub-section 4A an exception to sub-
section (1) by adding a proviso or by making a specific           B
provision thereto u/s. 3, where the Act itself provides
some exemptions and provides for specific cases where
the Act is not applicable. The fact that the West Bengal
State legislature did not, even after insertion of sub-
section 4A, amend or modify Rule 8 of the West Bengal             C
Premises Tenancy Rules, 1999 which prescribes the
manner of making applications u/s. 17 for fixation of fair
rent also fortifies the fact that the State legislature did not
intend to incorporate sub-section 4A as an exception to
sub-section (1) of Section 17. On the contrary, the non-          D
amendment of Rule 8 goes on to show that the
legislature intended the same procedure to be followed
with regard to making an application under any provision
of S~ction 17 for the fixation of fair rent. [Para 22] [861-F-
H; 862-A-B]
                                                                  E
                     Case Law Reference:
    (2005) 2 sec 409          followed.             Para 13
    2009 (10) SCALE 416       relied on.            Para 14
    (2009) 3 sec 553          relied on.            Para 18       F

    (1976) 3 sec 190          relied on.            Para 19
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2763 of 2010.
                                                                  G
    From the Judgment & Order dated 26.3.2008 of the High
Court at Calcutta in G.A. No. 800 of 2008 in C.S. No. 14 of
2008.

    Dr. AM. Singhvi, Ranjit Kumar, Rahul Roy, Kumar Mihit
                                                                  H
    852      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 3 S.C.R.


A Amit Bhandari (for Khaitan & Co.) for the Appellant.

        Bhaskar P. Gupta, Narin, S.K. Das, Sandeep Narain, Arti
    Tiwari (for S. Narain & Co.) for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
          DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave Granted.

         2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
    judgment and order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the Calcutta
c   High Court under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction whereby
    the High Court dismissed the application G.A. No. 800 of 2008
    in C.S. No. 14 of 2008 moved by the appellant herein under
    Chapter XlllA of the Rules on the Original Side Rules of the
    Calcutta High Court for a summary judgment.
D
       3. The issue and the controversy that falls for consideration
  in the present appeal deals with the interpretation of the
  provisions of sub-section 4A of Section 17 of the West Bengal
  Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The question that arises for our
E consideration is whether the fair rent in respect of a tenancy
  which subsists for 20 years or more in respect of the premises
  constructed in or before the year 1984 and used for commercial
  purpose is required to be determined by the Rent Controller
  or whether the same would stand automatically determined
F under sub-section 4A of Section 17 read with Section 20 of the
  West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

       4. At this juncture, it will be pertinent to set out a brief
  statement of facts in the backdrop of which the present
  controversy has arisen before us. A lease deed dated
G 15.02.1969 was executed between the appellant and the
  respondent herein for grant of lease, for office purposes, of the
  entire first floor of premises no. 20, Rajendra Nath Mukherjee
  Road, Calcutta for a period of twenty years from 01.02.1969
  to 31.01.1989 and the rent mutually settled and agreed upon
H
PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. v. PROTOS ENGINEERING 853
 COMPANY PVT. LTD. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

by the parties was Rs. 2,250/- per month as the basic                 A
component of the rent (the service charges and other additional
payments excluded).

     5. Upon the expiry of the term of twenty years, the appellant
herein instituted a suit being C.S. No. 778 of 1989 before the        B
Calcutta High Court. The appellant herein, however, had
withdrawn the said suit by way of an order dated 18.04.2006.
In the meanwhile, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,
1997 came into force which repealed the earlier Act of 1956.
Section 17(4A) was inserted by the West Bengal Premises               C
Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from
10.07.2001.

     6. The appellant therefore issued to the respondent a notice
dated 12.03.2007 under Section 20 of the West Bengal
Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 intending to increase the rent of          D
the said premises to Rs. 13,500/- per month, it being five times
the rent earlier agreed upon by the parties due and recoverable
from the month of May 2007. A notice under Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dated 09.06.20Q7
terminating the tenancy and calling upon the respondent to hand       E
over vacant, peaceful and khas possession of the said
premises was served upon the respondent by the appellant.

      7. Since the respondent continued to occupy the said
premises, the appellants instituted a suit C.S. No. 14 of 2008
                                                                      F
in the High Court of Calcutta under its ordinary original civil
jurisdiction, praying, inter a/ia, for a decree of peaceful, vacant
and khas possession of the said premises. Subsequently, an
application G.A. No. 800 of 2008 for a summary judgment was
moved by the appellant wherein it was contended by the
appellant that under sub-section 4A of Section 17 there is a          G
mandate for increase of rent which automatically comes in
operation upon a notice in that regard being issued under
Section 20 without the landlord requiring to p~rfect the demand
before any other authority. It was also urged that if there is no
                                                                      H
       854   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A dispute as to the quantum, the increased rent becomes payable
  from the month or period of tenancy next after the expiry of 30
  days from the date of the notice and the refusal without any
  dispute as to the quantum would not make the landlord liable
  to apply before the Rent Controller for fixation of rent. It was
B further contended that only where a tenant refused to accept
  the increase as suggested by a landlord, the landlord has
  perforce to seek the increase before the Rent Controller.
  However, the Court relying on an earlier judgment of the
  Division Bench of that Court reported as 2006 (2) CHN 386
c dismissed the said application. Hence, the parties are in appeal
  before us.                                     ·

          8. Before proceeding further, we wish to refer to the rival
   contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
   parties. Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior
D counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended before
   us that Section 17(4A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy
   Act, 1997 as inserted by the 2002 Amendment Act, envisages
   that the determination of the fair rent would be automatic under
   Section 17(4A) read with Section 20 of the West Bengal
E Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 without reference to the Rent
   Controller once the three pre-conditions which govern the
   applicability of Section 17(4A) spelt out in that Section are
   fulfilled. According to the counsel for the appellant, fixation of
   the rent is automatic because Section 17(4A) prescribes a
F formal method of fixing the rent requiring only minimal
   calculation. The counsel further forcefully submitted before us
   that since the job of fixing the rent does not involve any
   adjudicatory process, it is a ministerial task, and hence
   reference to the Rent Controller is not required.
G
          9. Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel
  "appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand,
   contended that sub-section 4A of Section 17 has to be read in
   conjunction with the other sub-sections of that Section and that
   application of Section 17(1) which requires the Rent Controller
1-:1
 PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. v. PROTOS ENGINEERING 855
  COMPANY P\,'T. ~TD-'!DB. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

- to fix the fair rent cannot be dispensed with. Mr. Gupta also laid    A
  emphasis on the fact that Rule 8 of the West Bengal Premises
  Tenancy Rules, 1999 which prescribes the manner of making
  applications under Section 17 for fixation of the fair rent remains
  unamended even after the amendment of the 1997 Act, thereby
  keeping the manner of fixation of the fair rent intact even for       B
  cases falling under sub-section 4A of Section 17.

      10. We have carefully considered the aforesaid
 submission of the counsel appearing for the parties. In order
 to appreciate the said contentions we have also perused not            C
 only the statutory provisions of the West Bengal Premises
 Tenancy Act, 1997 but also the Statement of Objects and
 Reasons leading to framing of the aforesaid legislation as also
 the Statement of Objects and Reasons for bringing in an
 amendment of the said Act in 2002 giving retrospective effect
 to the said provisions from 2001. Before the enactment of the          D
 West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the field was
 covered by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
 However, the aforesaid Act of 1997 was legislated after
 repealing the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. We
 may now have a look at the definition of the term "fair rent"          E
 under the Act of 1997. The definition of "fair rent" is given in
 Section 2(b), where it is stated that fair rent means rent fixed
 under Section 17 of the Act. At this stage, reference is also to
 be made to the relevant text of Section 17 which is reproduced
 below for the purpose of convenience but restricted only to the        F
 relevant portion: -

      "Section 17 - Fixation of fair rent 7 (1) The Controller
      shall, on application made to him either by the landlord
      or by the tenant in the prescribed manner, fix the fair rent      G
      in respect of any premises in accordance with the
      provisions of this Act.



      (4A) Where a tenancy subsist for twenty years or more             H
    856      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A         in respect of the premises constructed in or before the
          year 1984 and used for commercial purpose, the fair rent
          shall be determined by adding to the rent as on 1. 7. 1976
          five times or by accepting the existing rent if such rent is
          more than the increased rent determined under this sub-
s         section."

    The text of Section 20 which deals with the issuance of a notice
    required to be mandatorily given to the tenant by the landlord if
    he wants to increase the rent is also reproduced hereunder: -

C         "Section 20 - Notice of increase of rent - Where a
          landlord intends to increase the rent of any premises, he
          shall give to the tenant the notice of his intention so to
          do in so far as such increase is permissible under this
          Act; the increase of rent shall be due and recoverable
o         from the month or period of tenancy next after the expiry·
          of thirty days from the date on which the notice is given.
          "

        11. It may be mentioned herein that in the original Act of
E 1997 there did not exist the provisions of sub-section 4A of
  Section 17 and the same was brought in by the Amendment
  Act of 2002, operating retrospectively with effect from
  10.07.2001. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
  Bill of 2002 it was stated that one of the purposes for bringing
  in the Amendment Bill is to extend the application of the said
F Act to the premises let out for residential purpose and non-
  residential purpose having monthly rent upto Rs. 6,000/- and
  Rs. 10,000/- respectively situated within the limits of Kolkata
  Municipal Corporation or the Howrah Municipal Corporation as
  well as to extend the application of the said Act to the premises
G let out for residential purpose and non-residential purpose
  having monthly rent upto Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-
  respectively situated in other areas to which the said Act
  extends. Another reason stated for bringing in the Amendment
  Bill was to amend Section 17 of the said Act for fixation of fair
H rent in such a manner so as to provide benefit to both the
    PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. v. PROTOS ENGINEERING 857
     COMPANY PVT. LTD. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

    landlord and the tenant concerned.                                    A
         12. A plain reading of Section 17(4A) would suggest that
    the three conditions which must co-exist for the applicability of
    that sub-section in a given case are:

          i.     There must be a subsisting tenancy for twenty years      B
                 or more; and

          ii.    The tenancy must be in respect of a premises
                 constructed in or before the year 1984; and

          iii.   The premises must be used for a commercial
                                                                          c
                 purpose.

    The counsel for the parties have, before us, not disputed the
    fulfillment of these three pre-conditions in the present case.
    Therefore, we intend to directly move to the point which is in        D
    issue before us in the present appeal. At the outset, we wish
    to point out that for a number of reasons set out in the following
    paragraphs, we cannot accept the view propounded by the
    learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant.
                                                                          E
         13. A cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is that a
    provision in a statute must be read as a whole and not in
    isolation ignoring the other provisions of that statute. While
    dealing with a statutory instrument, one cannot be allowed to
    pick and choose. It will be grossly unjust if the Court allows a
                                                                          F
    person to single out and avail the benefit of a provision from a
    chain of provisions which is favourable to him. Reference may
    be made to a constitutional bench decision of this Court in the
,   case of Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC 409.
    The Court, in para 30, of that judgment observed as follows:
                                                                          G
        "30. By now it is well settled princip:e of law that no part
        of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in
        isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every
        word has a place and everything is in its place. It is also
        trite that the statute or rules made thereunder should be         H
    858       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010) 3 S.C.R.


A         read as a whole and one provision should be construed
          with reference to the other provision to make the
          provision consistent with the object sought to be
          achieved."

         14. We wish to also refer to a latest judgment of this Court
8
    reported as SAIL v. S.U. TN.I. Sangam and Ors. 2009 (10)
    SCALE 416, wherein this Court, very succinctly reiterated the
    aforesaid position in, para 79, as follows:

          "79. The learned counsel, however, invited our attention to
C         take recourse to the purposive interpretation doctrine in
          preference to the literal interpretation. It is a well settled
          principle of law that a statute must be read as a whole and
          then chapter by chapter, section by section, and then word
          by word. For the said purpose, the Scheme of the Act must
D         bti noticed. If the principle of interpretation of statutes
          resorted to by the Court leads to a fair reading of the
          provision, the same would fulfill the conditions of applying
          the principles of purposive construction."

E       15. From these authorities, it is amply clear that a provision
  in a s!atute ought not to be read in isolation. On the contrary, a
  statute must be read as an integral whole keeping in view the
  other provisions which may be relevant to the provision in
  question in order to correctly arrive at the legislative intent
F behind the provision in question. Applying this principle to the
  case at hand which involves an interpretation of Section 17
  (4A), it will not be appropriate for us to read sub-section 4A of
  Section 17 ignoring the other relevant provisions. It will also be
  pertinent to note that Section 18 of the Act which speaks about
  revision of the fair rent employs the words "automatically
G increased" in contradistinction to the word "determined" used
  in Section 17 (4A). The use of different terminology in the two
  sections thus indicates that the legislative intent was to lay down
  different modes for fixation of the rent under the two sections.

H         16. Furthermore, a plain reading of Section 20 of the Act
PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. v. PROTOS ENGINEERING 859
 COMPANY PVT. LTD. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

~ould show that Section 20 allows the landlord to only give a       A
notice of his intention to increase the rent, which becomes due
and recoverable from the month or period of tenancy next after
the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is
given. We are of the considered view that the requirement of
giving by the landlord a notice of intention to increase the rent   B
instead of a notice of increase of rent and the period of one
month which has been allowed before the increased rent
becomes due and recoverable from the tenant by the landlord
sufficiently indicate that the legislature did not intend to make
the rent fixed by the landlord automatically applicable without     c
any reference to the Rent Controller.

      17. The stand of the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that under sub-section 4A of Section
 17 there is automatic fixation of the fair rent without any
reference to the Rent Controller is untenable as it is not in D
conformity with the cardinal rule referred to above by us.
Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997,
as it stands today, consists of a number of sub-seetions. Sub-
sections 4A and 4B were both inserted in Section 17 by the·
West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 2002 with E
retrospective effect from 10.07.2001. Sub-section (1) of
Section 17 clearly states that the Controller shall be the
authority to fix the rent in respect of any premises in
accordance with the provisions of that Act. Sub-section 4A of
Section 17 lays down the mode for the determination of fair· F
rent where a tenancy subsists for twenty years or more in
respect of the premises constructed in or before the year 1984
and used for commercial purpose.

      18. Further, it is a well established principle of statutory G
interpretation that the legislature is specially precise and careful
in its choice of language. Thus, if a statutory provision is
enacted by the legislature in a certain manner, the only
reasonable interpretation which can be resorted to by the
courts is that such was the intention of the legislature and that
                                                                    H
    860       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A   the provision was consciously enacted in that manner. It is a
    well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything
    into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The
    language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of
    the legislative intent. If the language of the enactment is clear
B   and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add
    any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found
    in the statute. Reference in this regard may be made to the
    recent decision of this Court in Ansal Properties & Industries
    Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2009) 3 SCC 553.
c        19. We must also take note of the submission made by
    the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that
    sub-section 4A of Section 17 employs the word 'determine'.
    The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment
    of a three Judge bench of this Court, which is binding on us,
D   reported as Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Rly. v. T. R.
    Chellappan (1976) 3 SCC 190, the relevant portion of para 21
    is reproduced herein below:

          "21 .................... The word "consider" has been used in
E         contradistinction to the word "determine". The rule-making
          authority deliberately used the word "consider" and not
          "determine" because the word "determine" has a much
          wider scope. The word "consider" merely connotes that
          there should be active application of the mind by the
          disciplinary authority after considering the entire
F
          circumstances of the case in order to decide the nature
          and extent of the penalty to be imposed on the delinquent
          employee on his conviction on a criminal charge. This
          matter can tte objectively determined only if the delinquent
          employee is 'heard and is given a chance to satisfy the
G
          authority regaraing the final orders that may be passed by
          the said authority. In other words, the term "consider"
          postulates consideration of all the aspects, the pros and
          cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved
          person ................... "
H
PALLAWI RESOURCES LTD. v. PROTOS ENGINEERING 861
 COMPANY PVT. LTD. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)

      20. We may also add herein that all the sub-sections            A
included in Section 17 are independent provisions laying down
different criteria on the fulfillment of which an application could
be filed before the Rent Controller praying for increasing the
fair rent. In other words, Section 17 lays down different types
of causes of action as to when such an increase could be              B
sought for. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 makes it crystal clear
that on the happening and fulfillment of the criteria laid down in
each of the cause of action, an application would be required
to be filed before the Rent Controller who would then determine
as to what would be the fair rent. Although, it could only be a       c
case of mathematical calculation yet an order in that regard is
to be passed by the Rent Controller on the basis of an
application filed before it by determining the quantum of such
fair rent.

     21. In case there is a case of deemed increase of fair rent      D
or an automatic increase, as suggested by the counsel
appearing for the appellant, still somebody would have to
determine that it has so increased and that authority is definitely
the Rent Controller who could exercise the jurisdiction only when
he receives an application. Unless an application is received         E
in that regard, nobody would know that in fact a case for
increase of fair rent has accrued or is sought for by the
concerned party.

      22. Thus, it cannot be said that sub-section 4A of Section F
 17 was sought to be brought in by way of an exception to the
 general rule of Section 17. Had the legislature intended
 otherwise, it would have specifically, in its wisdom, made sub-
section 4A an exception to sub-section (1) by adding a proviso
or by making a specific provision thereto under Section 3, G
where the Act itself provides some exemptions and provides
for specific cases where the Act is not applicable. The fact that
the West Bengal State legislature did not, even after insertion
of sub-section 4A, amend or modify Rule 8 of the West Bengal
Premises Tenancy Rules, 1999 which prescribes the manner H
    862      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   of making applications under Section 17 for fixation of fair rent
    also fortifies the fact that the State legislature did not intend to
    incorporate sub-section 4A as an exception to sub-section (1)
    of Section 17. On the contrary, the non-amendment of Rule 8
    goes on to show that the legislature intended the same
B   procedure to be followed with regard to making an application
    under any provision of Section 17 for the fixation of fair rent.

         23. Thus, in light of the discussion made above, we are of
    the considered opinion that this appeal is liable to be
C   dismissed, which we hereby do. The parties are left to bear
    their own costs.

    K.K.T.                                        Appeal dismissed.