Summary
A tenant failed to pay his apportioned share of enhanced municipal taxes despite notice and without a specific challenge to the amount’s legality or proportionality. The Supreme Court held that the statutory obligation superseded the tenancy agreement’s tax arrangement and did not require a prior Rent Controller order enhancing rent, and allowed the landlord’s eviction application.
Issues
- Whether default in the tenant’s municipal-tax share supported eviction without a prior formal rent-enhancement order.
Provisions considered
- Section 5(8), West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997The amendment imposed an independent obligation on the tenant to pay his occupier’s share of municipal tax, superseding the earlier contractual tax arrangement. (¶¶ 4, 8, 13)
- Sections 230 and 231, Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980The owner primarily liable could apportion and recover the occupiers’ lawful shares, with rent-recovery rights; separate municipal assessment of each tenant’s portion was not required. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Section 5(8) imposed the tenant’s tax obligation over and above rent and displaced the earlier agreement’s arrangement for tax-linked rent increases. The High Court wrongly required a prior formal enhancement order from the Rent Controller. (¶¶ 4, 8, 13)
- The owner primarily liable to municipal tax could recover the proportionate occupier’s share, and Section 231 treated the recoverable sum as rent for recovery remedies. The statute did not require separate assessment of every tenant’s part of the premises. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- Following apportionment and notice, the tenant sought reconsideration but did not specifically dispute that the demand was excessive, disproportionate or unauthorised. Default was established on this record. (¶¶ 5, 9, 10, 13)
Result
Landlord’s appeal allowed; the orders below were set aside and the application for eviction of the respondent tenant allowed.