SMT. PUSPA SEN GUPTAversusSMT. SUSMA GHOSE

                            SMT. PUSPA SEN GUPTA
A                                     v.
                              SMT. SUSMA GROSE

                                   APRIL 20, 1990

B         [LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

            West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: Section 8(3), 34 &
       35-Non-payment of Rent-Eviction-Rent deposited-failure to
       deposit additional electricity charges-Held default committed in pay-
       ment of Rent-' Rent' includes amenities charges.

c            The respondent-landlord instituted a suit for eviction of the
       appellant-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellant-
       tenant deposited the rent but contested the suit contending that failure
       to deposit electricity charges was not a default of payment of rent. The
       Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that failure to deposit electricity
D      charges did not amount to default under the West Bengal Premises
       Tenancy ·Act, 1956. But on appeal the Additional District Judge
       reversed the decision and passed a decree for eviction, and the High
       Court confirmed this decision of the Additional District Judge in second
       appeal.

E            In appeal to this Court on the question: Whether the appellant
       was a defaulter· in the matter of payment of rent.                           , --'\c

            Dismissing the appeal and confirming the decision of the High
       Court, this Court, .

F            HELD: l. Although the expression 'rent' has not been defined,
       there are indications in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 to
       suggest that the word 'rent' includes not only what is strictly under-
       stood as rent, but also payment in respect of amenities or services           -f,
                                                                                        •
       provided by the landlord under the terms of tenancy. [566A-B]

G           2. The provisions contained in sections 8(3), 34 and 35 of the Act
      give a clear indication that the Act contemplates that a tenancy which
      carries with it certain amenities to be provided or services to be
      maintained by the landlord is within the purview of the Act. If the Act is
      not so interpreted, an astu.te landlord may successfully circumvent the
      provisions of the Act by imposing on the tenant onerous conditions with
    H reference to supply of amenities as binding terms of the tenancy. [566C-D]

                                           564
                SMT. P.S. GUPTA v. SMT. S. GHOSE (SHARMA, J.]             565

           Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopa/ Modi and Ors., [1977] 2 S.C.C. 656;
     distingnished.                                                              A

           Residence Ltd. v. Surendra Mohan Banerjee & Ors., A.I.R. 1951
     Cal. 126, approved in part.

           Karnani Properties Ltd. v. Augustin, [1957] S.C.R. 20, followed.      B

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil AppealNo. 3106
     of 1989.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 21.3.89 of the.Calcutta High
     Court in Appellate Decree No. 939 of i976.
                                                                                 c
           R.K. Garg and &opal Singh for the Appellant.

           Dr. "Shanker Ghosh, H.K. Puri and A. Deb for the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered b>                            D

            SHARMA, J. This appeal by a tenant of a certain premises in
     Calcutta is directed against the order of his eviction on the ground of
     non-payment of rent. The appellant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.32
     per month as rent and an additional sum of Rs.8 per month for elect-
-+   ricity. According to the defence of the appellant the rent had been         E
     duly deposited with the Rent Controller in accordance with the West
     Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and he was, therefore, not liable
     to be evicted. Deposit was made at the rate of Rs.32 and the remaining
     amount at the rate of Rs.8 was admittedly not deposited. The question
     which has been debated in the courts below is whether the aforesaid
     amount of Rs.8 was a part of rent which ought to have been deposited        F
     so as to escape the consequences of default. The trial court agreed with
     the tenant and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Additional District
     Judge, Alipore, reversed the decision and passed a decree for eviction
     holding that the tenant was a defaulter within the meaning of the term
     in the Act. The High Court confirmed the decree in second appeal by
     the impugned judgment.                                                      G

           2. Mr. Garg, the learned counsel appearing in support of the
     appeal has strenuously contended that the rent was only Rs.32-and did
     not include the additional amount of Rs.8 payable in lieu of electricity,
     and consequently the appellant can not be treated a defaulter in the
     matter of p_a1n1ent of rent. Reliance has been placed on the decision of    H
    566                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             I1990] 2 S.C.R.

A   this Court in Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal Modi and Others, I 1977] 2
    sec 656.
          3. Although the expression 'rent' has not been defined,. there
                                                                                  ---
    are indications in the present Act to suggest that the word 'rent'
    includes not only what is strictly understood as rent, but also payment
8   in respect of amenities or services provided by the landlord under the
    terms of the tenancy. The Act deals with the fixation and revision of
    fair rent and sub-section (3) of section 8, takes into account furniture if
    supplied or fittings affixed in the tenement for the use of the tenant,
    indicating that an agreement between the landlord and the tenant in
    respect of the additional amenities comes within the scope of the Act.
c   Similarly the provisions of section 34 refer to the maintainance of any
    essential supply or service (including supply of electricity) and section
    35 deals with emergency measures to be taken in respect of matters
    including additional services. These provisions give a clear indication
    that the Act contemplates that a tenancy which carries with it certain
     amenities to be provided or services to be maintained by the landlord
D    is within the purview of the Act. If the Act is not so interpreted, an
     astute landlord may successfully circumvent the provisions of the Act
     by imposing on the tenant onerous conditions with reference to supply
     of amenities as binding terms of the tenancy. A same view was taken
     by the Calcutta High Court in Residence Ltd. v. Surendra Mohan
     Banerjee & Ors., A.I.R. 1951 Calcutta 126; while interpreting 'rent'
E    under the earlier Rent Act of 1950. So far this aspect is concerned, the
     relevant provisions of the present Act are not very different. A similar
     question under the 1950 Act later arose before this Court also in
      Karnani Properties Ltd. v. Augustin, [1957] SCR 20; and the Calcutta
     High Court's view was affirmed. It may, however, be mentioned at this
     stage that the view of the Calcutta Bench on another question which
F     does not arise in the present appeal was not approved, but that is
     wholly irrelevant for the purpose of case before us. So far the decision
      in Radha Kishan Sao's case relied upon by Mr. Garg is concerned, it is      -(
      clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the agreement therein relating to
      the payment for furniture was according to the finding "a quite inde-
      pendent contract unconnected with the original tenancy" (see para 14
G     of the judgment). Besides, the case was governed by the rent law as
      applicable in Bihar and not by th!' present Act. We, therefore, confirm
      the decision of the High Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.

     T.N.A.                                                 Appeal dismissed.