Supreme Court clarifies the rights of a spouse of a deceased tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997: Nasima Naqi vs. Todi Tea Company Ltd (26 November 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1180
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a spouse of a deceased tenant claim lifetime protection from eviction in a non-residential property? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while interpreting the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The core issue was whether the Act provides the same protection to a spouse in non-residential premises as it does in residential premises. The bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Ajay Rastogi, J delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The spouse of the appellant was a tenant of shop Room No 23 in Calcutta since 6 May 1988, with a monthly rent of Rs 235.95 and an interest-free deposit of Rs 12,000. The tenant passed away in July 2002, leaving behind the appellant (his spouse) and two sons. In 2010, the landlord filed a suit for eviction, citing non-payment of enhanced rent as per the amended provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which came into effect on 10 July 2001. The landlord also argued that the heirs had no right to continue in possession after five years from the tenant’s death. A notice was sent to the heirs on 30 July 2010, and the eviction suit was filed on 4 August 2017. The trial court decreed eviction due to default in rent payment and ordered arrears of Rs 27,887.10. The appellant appealed to the High Court, arguing that as a spouse, she was entitled to lifetime protection from eviction under Section 2(g) of the Act for non-residential premises.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The City Civil Court, Calcutta decreed eviction on the grounds of default in rent payment and directed the defendants to pay arrears of Rs 27,887.10. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Calcutta, arguing that as the spouse of the deceased tenant, she was entitled to lifetime protection from eviction, even for non-residential premises, under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The High Court framed two points for determination: (i) whether a spouse is entitled to lifetime protection in non-residential premises, and (ii) if not, whether the spouse has a right to a fresh agreement. The High Court rejected the appellant’s claim, stating that the first proviso of Section 2(g) does not apply to non-residential premises and that the second proviso does not grant any right to the spouse for a fresh agreement. The High Court noted that this was a case of “casus omissus” (an omission) by the legislature, which could not be corrected by judicial interpretation but only by legislative amendment.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. This section defines “tenant” and includes provisions for the devolution of tenancy upon the death of the original tenant.

Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 states:

“2. Definitions. – (g) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or, but for a special contract, would be payable, and includes any person continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy and, in the event of death of any tenant, also includes, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of death of such tenant or from the date of coming into force of this Act, whichever is later, his spouse, son, daughter, parent and the widow of his predeceased son, who were ordinarily living with the tenant up to the date of death of the tenant as the members of his family and were dependant on him and who do not own or occupy any residential premises, and in respect of premises let out for non-residential purpose his spouse, son, daughter and parent who were ordinarily living with the tenant up to the date of his death as members of his family, and were dependant on him or a person authorised by the tenant who is in possession of such premises but shall not include any person against whom any decree or order for eviction has been made by a Court of competent jurisdiction:
Provided that the time-limit of five years shall not apply to the spouse of the tenant who was ordinarily living with the tenant up to his death as a member of his family and was dependant on him and who does not own or occupy any residential premises:
Provided further that the son, daughter, parent or the widow of the predeceased son of the tenant who was ordinarily residing with the tenant in the said premises up to the date of death of the tenant as a member of his family and was dependant on him and who does not own or occupy any residential premises, shall have a right of preference for tenancy in a fresh agreement in respect of such premises on condition of payment of fair rent. This proviso shall apply mutatis mutandis to premises let out for non-residential purpose.”

The section specifies that after the death of a tenant, certain family members are included in the definition of “tenant” for a period not exceeding five years. However, the first proviso removes this five-year limit for the spouse in the case of residential premises. The second proviso grants a right of preference for a fresh tenancy agreement to the son, daughter, parent, or widow of a predeceased son, and this applies to both residential and non-residential premises.

Arguments

The appellant argued that as the spouse of the deceased tenant, she is entitled to lifetime protection from eviction, even in a non-residential premises, under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. She contended that the first proviso to Section 2(g), which removes the five-year time limit for a spouse, should apply to both residential and non-residential premises.

The landlord argued that the first proviso applies only to residential premises and that the second proviso, which grants a right of preference for a fresh tenancy agreement, does not include the spouse in non-residential premises. The landlord contended that the High Court correctly interpreted the law and that the appellant is not entitled to any protection beyond the five-year period.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the spouse of a deceased tenant is entitled to lifetime protection from eviction in respect of premises let out for non-residential purposes under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment, but it did analyze the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

Judgment

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s interpretation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The Court observed that the first proviso of Section 2(g) which removes the five-year time limit for a spouse, applies only to residential premises. The second proviso grants a right of preference for a fresh tenancy agreement to the son, daughter, parent, or widow of a predeceased son, and this applies to both residential and non-residential premises. However, the legislature has not included the spouse of a deceased-tenant in recognizing a right of preference for tenancy in a case of a fresh agreement.

The Court noted that this is a case of “casus omissus” (an inadvertent omission) on the part of the legislature. The exclusion of a spouse of a deceased tenant is without rationale, discriminatory, and deprives the surviving spouse of a valuable entitlement granted to other heirs. The court stated that there is a valid justification for amending the provision to include the widow within the ambit of the second proviso.

The Court observed that it is not open to the court to introduce words in the second proviso which have the effect of including one class of heirs, namely, a spouse of a deceased-tenant whom the legislature has left out of the terms of the second proviso.

The Supreme Court stated that it hopes and trusts that this aspect of the omission in the second proviso will engage the attention of the law makers so as to fulfill the salutary purpose of the provision.

The Court granted the appellant time to vacate the premises until 30 June 2020, subject to the filing of an undertaking in the Registry of the Court within four weeks.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the literal interpretation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The Court noted that while the law provides protection to the spouse of a deceased tenant in residential premises, it does not extend the same protection to non-residential premises. The Court also acknowledged that the exclusion of the spouse in the second proviso was an inadvertent omission by the legislature.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the legal provisions, acknowledging that the legislature’s omission resulted in an unfair outcome for the spouse of a deceased tenant in non-residential premises. The court also emphasized that it is not within the powers of the court to correct the legislative omission and that it is for the legislature to amend the law.

Key Takeaways

• The spouse of a deceased tenant does not have lifetime protection from eviction in non-residential premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
• The first proviso of Section 2(g), which removes the five-year time limit for a spouse, applies only to residential premises.
• The second proviso of Section 2(g), which grants a right of preference for a fresh tenancy agreement, does not include the spouse in non-residential premises.
• The Supreme Court acknowledged that the exclusion of the spouse in the second proviso was an inadvertent omission by the legislature.
• The Court stated that the legislature should consider amending the law to include the spouse in the second proviso.

Directions

The Supreme Court granted the appellant time to vacate the premises until 30 June 2020, subject to the filing of an undertaking in the Registry of the Court within four weeks. A copy of the judgment was directed to be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the spouse of a deceased tenant is not entitled to lifetime protection from eviction in non-residential premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The court also clarified that the second proviso of Section 2(g) does not grant the spouse a right to a fresh tenancy agreement in non-residential premises. This judgment does not change the existing law but highlights a legislative omission that needs to be addressed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Nasima Naqi vs. Todi Tea Company Ltd clarifies that under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the spouse of a deceased tenant does not have lifetime protection from eviction in non-residential premises. The Court acknowledged a legislative omission in not including the spouse in the second proviso, which grants a right of preference for a fresh tenancy agreement to other family members. The Court has urged the legislature to consider amending the law to rectify this omission.