BURDWAN REAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD Vs. LAL BEHARI KAPURIA
LAWS(CAL)-1960-9-12
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 15,1960

BURDWAN REAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
LAL BEHARI KAPURIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Bachawat, J. - (1.) The purpose of the letting does not decide whether the property let is premises within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The letting may be for residential or for non-residential purposes. In this case the property let is said to be a holding consisting of a building, c.i. sheds, stalls, pavements, vacant space, lanes and bye-lanes commonly known as Barabazar Vegetable and Fish Market within the Burdwan Municipality, measuring 12 cottas 7 chittaks. Such a property may well be premises within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. The test is--is the property a building or part of a building or a hut or part of a hut let separately including the grounds and out-houses appertaining thereto? If the property let is a property of that description, the tact that it is let for being used as a market, will not prevent the property being premises within the meaning of the Act. The Act applies to the letting of premises irrespective of the purpose for which the premises are let.
(2.) The decisions under the English Rent Acts do not assist us on the point under consideration. The English Rent Acts apply only to a dwelling house--see R. E. Megarry The Rent Acts, 7th Edn. p. 41. There is nothing in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which confines its operation to premises let as a dwelling. The Act applies to premises let for residential purposes as also to premises let for non-residential purposes. Where the Act refers to a letting for residential purposes it expressly says so as in Sections 3 and 13(g) and 13(h).
(3.) There was, some discussion at the Bar as to the meaning of the expression "appertaining to." In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 4th edition--the word "appertain"' is said to mean "belong as possession or right to; be appropriate to; relate to". Strictly, neither the grounds can be said to belong to a building nor can a building be said to belong to the grounds. Roth of them belong to the owner. Nevertheless, Section 2(f) contemplates that there may be grounds, gardens and out-houses which may be said to belong to or be appropriate to or relate to the building. In Norton on Deeds, 2nd edition, pages 277.--S, and 83--it is pointed out that the expression "appertaining" may mean "usually occupied with or, held or enjoyed with". See also Hill and Redman's "Law of Landlord and Tenant'', 11th edition, page 113; Ramnath Iyer, "The Law Lexicon of British India", 1st edition, pages 76-77. The question whether the grounds, gardens and outhouses, if any, appertain to the building or hut must be decided on the facts of the particular case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.