- (1.) It is surprising that so much time has been wasted in this appeal and much paper in the judgment of the Single Bench over an issue that needs no more than a line or a sentence to be dealt with.
(2.) The appellant is EIH Limited, a big name in the industry and very big must its litigation be made out. That may have been the only reason. The suit pertains to a tenant in the Grand Hotel arcade. The plaint claims, at paragraph 2 thereof, that the monthly rent is Rs.10,000/-. The agreement between the parties of May 6, 1993 in its opening clause records the monthly rent to be Rs.10,000/- payable according to the English calendar month.
(3.) The suit was instituted in 2013 for eviction upon notice, despite Section 3(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 not exempting the relevant premises from the purview of such rent control statute. Section 3(f) of the Act of 1997 provides as follows: "S. 3. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to - (a) ... ... (f) any premises let out for non-residential purpose, which carries more than - (i) ten thousand rupees as monthly rent in the areas included within the limits of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation or the Howrah Municipal Corporation; or (ii) five thousand rupees as monthly rent in other areas to which this Act extends. Explanation. - Where any premises is let out partly for residential purpose and partly for non-residential purpose, the provisions of clause (f) shall apply to such premises in proportion to respective areas." ;