Supreme Court Defines “Government Premises” in West Bengal Eviction Case: West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vs. M/S. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 March 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 245

Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a government body evict a tenant under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, from a plot of land without any building or structure? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether a bare plot of land leased by a government undertaking qualifies as “Government Premises” under the Act. The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Case Background

The West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (hereafter, “the Corporation”), a government undertaking, acquired land in Tangra, Calcutta, which previously belonged to Bengal Potteries Limited. The Corporation planned to develop a small-scale industrial zone. After demolishing existing structures, the Corporation divided the area into plots and invited applications for leasing. M/S. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter, “the Respondent”) was allotted three plots (plot nos. 7, 15 and 8) for setting up a small-scale industry.

Lease deeds were executed on 14.12.2007 and 04.03.2009 for plot nos. 7 & 15 and 8 respectively, and possession was handed over on 17.01.2008. However, the Respondent failed to begin construction on the plots. Consequently, the Corporation issued a show-cause notice on 10.10.2012 for violating the lease terms. After an unsatisfactory reply from the Respondent and an extension of time, the Corporation terminated the lease on 09.11.2013, invoking the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereafter, “the Act”).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Respondent appealed the termination order to the Managing Director of the Corporation, who upheld the eviction order on 16.01.2014. While the appeal was pending, the Respondent filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging the termination notice. A single judge of the High Court granted an interim order restraining the Corporation from evicting the Respondent, noting that the core issue was the applicability of the Act to leases of land without structures.

The Corporation appealed to a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed the appeal and allowed the writ petition. The Division Bench held that the Corporation was not a government undertaking and that the leased premises were not “government premises” under the Act, thus, the Act did not apply.

Legal Framework

The case hinges on the interpretation of key definitions within the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. Section 3 of the Act deals with the termination of tenancy. Specifically, Section 3(2) states that a tenancy in respect of a Government premises shall stand automatically terminated without any notice to quit where the tenant has violated the terms of the lease.

The definitions of “Government Premises,” “Government Undertaking,” and “Premises” under Section 2 of the Act are crucial.

• Section 2(a): “Government premises” means any premises owned by the State Government or by a Government undertaking.
• Section 2(b): “Government undertaking” means a body corporate constituted by or under a Central or State Act, which is under the administrative control of the State Government or in which the State Government has exclusive proprietary interest.
• Section 2(c): “Premises” means any building or hut and includes part of a building or hut and a seat in a room, let separately, and also includes the gardens, grounds, and out-houses, if any, appurtenant thereto, and any furniture, fittings, or fixtures affixed for the use of the tenant.

The Act was enacted to expedite the recovery of possession of government premises, bypassing the time-consuming procedures of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The preamble of the Act states that it is for “regulation of certain incidences of tenancy in relation to government premises in West Bengal.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:
✓ The Corporation is a Government undertaking as it is a government company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is fully under the administrative and financial control of the State Government.
✓ The leased plots are part of a larger premises that includes an office building, and the entire land should be considered as one unit, falling under the definition of “Government premises” under Section 2(a) of the Act.

Respondents’ Arguments:
✓ The Corporation does not satisfy the definition of “Government undertaking” under Section 2(b) of the Act.
✓ The leased premises are not covered under the Act because only bare land was leased, and the definition of “premises” under Section 2(c) of the Act does not include bare land.
✓ The term “premises” in Section 2(a) must be read with the definition in Section 2(c), and any other interpretation would create a repugnancy between the two sections.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant-Corporation is a “Government undertaking” within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976?
2. Whether the premises owned by the Corporation and leased out to the respondent No.1 are “Government premises” within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 2(a) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, defining “Government premises.”
• Section 2(b) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, defining “Government undertaking.”
• Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, defining “premises.”
• Section 3 of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, dealing with the termination of tenancy.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court analyzed the definition of “Government premises” under Section 2(a)* of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, and held that it must be read together with the definition of “premises” under Section 2(c)* of the same Act.
• The Court analyzed the definition of “Government undertaking” under Section 2(b)* of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, and held that the Corporation is a Government undertaking.
• The Court interpreted the definition of “premises” under Section 2(c)* of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, and concluded that it does not include bare land.
• The Court examined the provisions for termination of tenancy under Section 3* of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, and held that it does not apply to the facts of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a strict interpretation of the statutory definitions, particularly the definition of “premises” under Section 2(c) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the term “premises” does not include bare land, and therefore, the Act cannot be applied to evict a tenant from a bare plot of land. The court also focused on the fact that the eviction proceedings were initiated when the land was still bare, without any structure.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the leased plots were part of a larger premises, but rejected it, stating that the eviction proceedings were only in respect of the bare plots. The Court also noted that the material date for determining whether the premises were “Government premises” was the date of initiation of the eviction proceedings.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“Therefore, we have 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.”

“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 sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3, the proceedings would have been maintainable.”

“Therefore, we hold that the eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation against respondent No.1 under the Act was without jurisdiction.”

Key Takeaways

✓ The West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, does not apply to leases of bare land by government undertakings.
✓ Eviction proceedings under the Act can only be initiated for premises that include a building, hut, or appurtenant areas, as defined in Section 2(c).
✓ Government undertakings must seek eviction of tenants from bare land under other applicable laws, such as the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962.
✓ The material date for determining the nature of the premises is the date of initiation of eviction proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Corporation can seek eviction of the Respondent under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the definition of “premises” under Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, does not include bare land. Therefore, the Act cannot be used to evict tenants from bare plots of land owned by government undertakings. This clarifies the scope of the Act and limits its applicability to only those premises that include a building, hut, or appurtenant areas. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases in West Bengal, ensuring that government bodies cannot misuse the Act to evict tenants from bare land.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that while the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. is a government undertaking, the leased plots of land, being bare land, do not qualify as “Government premises” under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. The Court emphasized that the definition of “premises” under the Act does not include bare land, and therefore, the eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation were without jurisdiction. The Court allowed the Corporation to seek eviction under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962.