2020 (3) TMI 906 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules Corporation not entitled to government premises status under West Bengal law

WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. Versus M/s. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant Corporation qualifies as a government undertaking but the premises in question do not ... Termination of tenancy - Section 3 of West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 - HELD THAT:- Normally, the rights of the lessor and the lessee and the incidence of tenancy are governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The provision relating to termination of tenancy in case of breach of the conditions of the lease and recovery of possession from the lessee under the Transfer of Property Act is very time-consuming. Even, the execution of decree for possession is a complicated and time-consuming process. In order to avoid all these hurdles and to expedite the recovery of possession, the Legislature has enacted the Act. The preamble of the Act makes it clear that it has been enacted to provide for regulation of certain incidences of tenancy in relation to government premises in West Bengal and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto - In the present case, the premises in question are not owned by the government. It is owned by the appellant-Corporation, which is a government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Whether the Corporation can be regarded as a “Government undertaking” so as to attract the applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of the premises held by it? - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that the Corporation is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Corporation is under the administrative control of the State Government and almost all the shares of the Corporation, are held by the State Government, apart from a few shares which are held by IAS officers in their official capacity. It owes its status as a body corporate to the Companies Act enacted by the Parliament - the Appellant company is a “Government undertaking” as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. Whether the premises owned by the Corporation and let out to respondent No.1 are government premises within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act? - HELD THAT:- When a seat in a room of a Government premises is let out to a tenant, certainly it will be a Government premises. Again, if a seat in a room is let out together with the gardens; grounds and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to a seat in a room, such tenancy will be of a “Government premises”. When neither a building nor a part of the building nor a hut nor a part of the hut nor a seat in a room is let out to a tenant but only bare land is let out to a tenant, can such tenancy be regarded as relating to a “Government premises” to attract the provisions of the Act? - HELD THAT:- The expression “includes” is used in two places of the definition of “premises” in Section 2(c) and the expression “includes” which was used for the second time in the said definition without any doubt was included to expand the ambit of “Government premises” so as to attract the provisions of the said Act. The expression “appurtenant to it” carries special significance. We cannot read the definition of “premises” bereft of the expression “appurtenant to it”. The expression “appurtenant” in the context means ‘relating to’, ‘usually enjoyed’, ‘occupied with’ or ‘adjoining’. Therefore, if a garden, ground, or an outhouse is let out along with building or hut or a seat in a room, such a garden, ground or an outhouse becomes part of the “premises”. However, bare land has not been independently included in the definition of “premises” - there are no hesitation to hold that if bare land is let out by the government and/or the government undertaking to its tenant, the incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed by the provisions of the Act and as such a tenant cannot be evicted by taking aid of the provisions of the Act. When the eviction proceedings were initiated, admittedly, the land in question did not contain any structures. If the bare land is let out by the government undertaking and it continues to be a bare land as on the date of initiation of eviction proceedings, the incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed by the provisions of the Act and such a tenant cannot be evicted by taking aid of the provisions of the Act. The material date is the date of initiation of the eviction proceedings. Had respondent No.1 put up the construction on the plots of land leased to it, and if the eviction is sought under Section 3 of the Act for violation of some other clauses of the lease deed or upon satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) of Section 3, the proceedings would have been maintainable. The eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation against respondent No.1 under the Act was without jurisdiction - Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant Corporation qualifies as a 'Government undertaking' under Section 2(b) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976.2. Whether the premises in question qualify as 'Government premises' under Section 2(a) of the Act.3. Applicability of the Act to the eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation.4. Jurisdiction of the Corporation to seek eviction under the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the appellant Corporation qualifies as a 'Government undertaking' under Section 2(b) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976:The Corporation, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is under the administrative control of the State Government, with almost all shares held by the State Government. The Court concluded that the appellant company is a 'Government undertaking' as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act, which defines a Government undertaking as a body corporate constituted by or under a Central or State Act under the administrative control of the State Government or in which the State Government has exclusive proprietary interest.2. Whether the premises in question qualify as 'Government premises' under Section 2(a) of the Act:The term 'Government premises' is defined in Section 2(a) as any premises owned by the State Government or a Government undertaking, excluding official residences. The Court emphasized that the definition of 'premises' under Section 2(c), which includes buildings, huts, and appurtenant grounds, must be read conjointly with Section 2(a). The Court held that bare land, not appurtenant to any building or hut, does not fall within the definition of 'Government premises.'3. Applicability of the Act to the eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation:The Corporation issued a notice to terminate the lease for violation of lease terms, specifically for not commencing construction on the plots. The Court noted that the premises let to respondent No.1 were bare land without any structure at the time of lease and at the initiation of eviction proceedings. Since the bare land does not satisfy the definition of 'Government premises' under Section 2(a) read with Section 2(c), the Act's provisions do not apply to the eviction proceedings.4. Jurisdiction of the Corporation to seek eviction under the Act:The Court found that the eviction proceedings initiated under the Act were without jurisdiction as the premises in question did not qualify as 'Government premises.' The Court agreed with the High Court's view that the Corporation should seek eviction under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, which is the appropriate legislation for such cases.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while the appellant Corporation qualifies as a government undertaking, the premises in question do not come within the definition of 'Government premises' under the Act. The Corporation was directed to seek eviction under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962. No order as to costs was made.