Summary
The widow of a tenant challenged eviction from a non-residential shop, claiming continuing statutory protection and preference for a fresh tenancy. The Supreme Court upheld the interpretation that the five-year exception for spouses concerned residential premises and that the fresh-tenancy preference omitted spouses. Although it regarded that omission as discriminatory and deserving legislative correction, it declined to insert the missing class judicially. Eviction was maintained with time to vacate.
Issues
- Whether a deceased tenant’s spouse enjoyed continuing protection in non-residential premises.
- Whether the statutory preference for a fresh tenancy could judicially be extended to the spouse.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(g) and its provisos, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997The first proviso’s exception to the five-year limit concerned residential premises. The second proviso omitted the spouse from the heirs granted preference for a fresh tenancy; adding that class required substantive amendment. (¶¶ 4, 7, 8, 9)
Held
- The five-year limit does not apply to a qualifying spouse in residential premises. The second proviso grants stipulated heirs preference for a fresh tenancy in residential and non-residential premises but excludes the spouse. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- The spouse’s exclusion was an inadvertent omission without rationale and deserving legislative attention. Courts could not add the omitted class to the proviso. (¶ 9)
- The appellant had remained over seventeen years after the tenant’s death, and the landlord did not intend a fresh tenancy. No interference with eviction was warranted. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal disposed of without costs, maintaining eviction. Time to vacate was granted until 30 June 2020 subject to filing the usual undertaking within four weeks; otherwise the decree became executable forthwith. A copy was directed to the Chief Secretary of West Bengal for attention to the legislative omission.