Skip to main content

Municipal taxes would be a part of the "rent" payable by tenant to landlord

In M/S POPAT & KOTECHA PROPERTY vs ASHIM KUMAR DEY, the question before the Supreme Court was whether a tenant who defaults in payment of his/her share of municipal tax as apportioned by the landlord would be in default of rent rendering him/her liable to eviction under the  West Bengal premises Tenancy Act as amended in 2001.

The rent agreement between the parties stipulated that the rent would include all municipal taxes payable and that as and when such taxes are enhanced rent should be proportionately raised. The amendment 2001, the sub-section of section 5, cast the obligation to pay the taxes specifically on the occupier/tenant.

When the property tax was enhanced, the landlord apportioned the tax between the tenants and issued a notice upon the respondent-tenant to pay his share of the municipal taxes. The respondent-tenant in reply requested reconsideration/review of the matter.

The trial court dismissed the eviction suit filed by the landlord for non-payment of taxes on the ground that no documentary evidence with regard to the enhancement of property tax was forthcoming and as the respondent-tenant had been depositing the monthly rent payable with the Rent Controller, the tenant cannot be deemed to be the defaulter.

The appeal before the Calcutta High Court was dismissed on the ground held that even if the municipal taxes are to be held to be part of the rent payable, there is no automatic enhancement of the rent by an unilateral notice on the part of the landlord under Section 20 of the 1997 Act and that such enhancement has to be ordered by the Rent Controller.

The Supreme Court disagreed with both trial court and the High Court and referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Gujarati Education Society and another vs. Calcutta Municipal Corpn. and others which held that the owner or lessor of the property is “primarily” required to satisfy the demand towards tax with right to recover it from the tenant, sub-tenant or the occupant. In case where the lessor or landlord has paid the whole tax including the portion of tax payable by the tenant or sub-tenant, the landlord has to be equipped with the power to get himself reimbursed by recovery of the portion of tax paid by him on behalf of the tenant. Section 231 of the Act, therefore, creates a fiction that the “tax” apportioned on the tenant would be treated as “rent” and would be recoverable as such. The word “rent” has not been defined in the tenancy law and this Court has taken note of this legal position in the case of Puspa Sen Gupta v. Susma Ghose which arose out of the provisions of the Tenancy Act applicable to West Bengal. Rent is a compendious expression which may include lease money with service charges for water, electricity and other taxes leviable on the tenanted premises.
While the provisions of the 1980 Act make it very clear that an occupier as distinguished from the owner i.e. ‘person primarily liable’ is entitled to pre-assessment notice and to participate in the assessment proceedings and also to question the same by way of an appeal, etc. assessment of a part of the premises in occupation of a tenant or different parts of such premises in occupation of different tenants is not contemplated under the 1980 Act. Rather, from the provisions of Section 230 of the 1980 Act, it is clear that the person to be assessed to tax is the person primarily liable to pay i.e. the owner who is vested with the right to recover the portion of the tax paid by him on behalf of the tenant, if required, proportionately to the extent that the value of the area occupied bears to the value of the total area of the property. Under the 1980 Act, in the event of any default on the part of the owner to pay the tax the rent payable by the tenant(s) is liable to be attached.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more