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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more