Fair-rent determination and statutory notice are required before enhanced rent can be treated as a crystallized debt for winding up.

Under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, enhanced rent was not automatically recoverable merely because Section 17(4A) applied; enhancement required notice under Section 20 and fixation of fair rent by the Controller. The statutory scheme treated fair-rent determination as the designated mechanism, and neither the landlord nor the Company Court could bypass it or fix rent themselves. In the absence of notice and such determination, the alleged rent claim had not crystallized into a due debt and was therefore too disputed to support a winding up petition. The result was that the admitted winding up order was set aside and the petition was dismissed as premature.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether enhanced rent under Section 17(4A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 could be treated as recoverable without notice under Section 20 and without fixation of fair rent by the Controller. (ii) Whether, in the absence of such fixation and notice, the alleged rent claim constituted a crystallized debt so as to support a winding up petition.

Issue (i): Whether enhanced rent under Section 17(4A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 could be treated as recoverable without notice under Section 20 and without fixation of fair rent by the Controller.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read as one for fixation of fair rent through the Controller, with the amendment intended to benefit both landlord and tenant. The Court held that fair rent was not automatically payable merely because Section 17(4A) applied. A notice under Section 20 was required for enhancement, and the rent had to be settled by the Controller, not by the landlord or the Company Court. The Court also held that, in view of the statutory bar, the civil court could not itself fix fair rent.

Conclusion: The enhanced rent could not be enforced without notice under Section 20 and determination by the Controller; the contention of automatic enhancement was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of such fixation and notice, the alleged rent claim constituted a crystallized debt so as to support a winding up petition.

Analysis: Since fair rent had not been determined and the tenant had raised a substantial objection on the statutory basis of the claim, the alleged liability was held not to have crystallized when the winding up petition was presented. The Court treated the dispute as bona fide and concluded that the petition was premature. The absence of notice under Section 20 further rendered the claim premature for winding up purposes.

Conclusion: The claim did not amount to a crystallized debt and could not sustain the winding up petition.

Final Conclusion: The order admitting the winding up petition was set aside and the winding up petition was dismissed, with the appeal succeeding on the ground that the debt had not been lawfully crystallized.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires notice and determination of fair rent by the designated authority, a landlord cannot bypass that mechanism and treat an unassessed enhancement as a due debt for winding up proceedings.

---