Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.66 seconds)Section 3 in The West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Reserve Bank Of India vs Peerless General Finance & Investment ... on 22 January, 1987
(See Dadaji v. Sukhdeobabu AIR
1980 SC 150; Reserve Bank of India v. Pearless General Finance
and Investment Co. Ltd. AIR 1987 SC 1023 and Mahalakshmi Oil
Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1989 SC 335). The inclusive
definition of "district judge" in Article 236(a) of the Constitution
has been very widely construed to include hierarchy of specialized
Civil Courts viz. Labour Courts and Industrial Courts which are
not expressly included in the definition.
The State Of Maharashtra vs Labour Law Practitioners' Association ... on 11 February, 1998
(See State of Maharashtra
v. Labour Law Practitioners' Association AIR 1998 SC 1233).
Therefore, there is no warrant or justification for restricting the
applicability of the Act to residential buildings alone merely on the
ground that in the opening part of the definition of the word
"premises", the words "building or hut" have been used.
Blue Print & 13 Ors. vs Blue Great Eastern Hotels Authority & ... on 14 October, 1999
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that in
Blue Print & 13 Ors. v. The Great Eastern Hotels Authority & Ors.
(2000) 1 Calcutta Law Times 450, a Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court had held that the Act applied only to
residential premises and, therefore, it was not open to learned
Single Judge and also the Division Bench in the appeal filed by the
appellant to take a contrary view, namely, that the Act is applicable
to residential as well as non-residential premises including
industrial sheds. It is necessary to state here that the decision in
the case of Blue Print & 13 others was challenged by the State of
West Bengal by filing an appeal in this Court and the judgment is
reported in (2002) 4 SCC 134 (State of West Bengal & ors. v.
Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr.). Though the appeal
was dismissed but the question as to whether the Act would apply
only to residential premises was not decided and was left open, as
will be evident from para 23 of the reports. As we have examined
the controversy and have come to the conclusion that the Act is
applicable to non-residential and commercial premises as well, the
contention raised is purely academic in nature and can have no
bearing on the fate of the appeal.
The West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976
The West Bengal Public Land (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962
Angurbala Mullick vs Debabrata Mullick on 3 May, 1951
10. As the language shows, the definition of the word
"premises" as given in Section 2(c) of the Act is a very
comprehensive one and it not only means any building or hut or
part of a building or hut and a seat in a room, let separately but also
includes godowns, gardens and out-houses appurtenant thereto and
also any furniture supplied or any fittings or fixtures affixed for the
use of the tenant in such building, hut or seat in a room, as the case
may be. A "seat in a room" or "gardens" or "godowns" by
themselves do not qualify to be called a residential building. A
residence ordinarily means a place where one resides; the act or
fact of abiding or dwelling in a place for some time; an act of
making one's home in a place. "Residential" ordinarily means -
used, serving or designed as a residence or for occupation by
residents; relating to or connected with residence. Gardens or
grounds or any furniture supplied or fittings or fixtures affixed in a
building or seat in a room can by no stretch of imagination be
called or said to be a residential building, but they are included in
the definition of premises. This shows that the legislature intended
to give a very wide and all comprehensive definition of premises
and did not intend to give it a restricted meaning. The opening part
of the definition of the word "premises" in Section 2(c) employs
the word "any". Any is a word of very wide meaning and prime
facie the use of it excludes limitation. (See Angurbala Mullick v.
Debabrata Mullick AIR 1951 SC 293 at 297). The definition of
premises in Section 2(c) uses the word "includes" at two places. It
is well settled that the word "include" is generally used in
interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words
or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so
used those words or phrases must be construed as comprehending,
not only such things, as they signify according to their natural
import, but also those things which the interpretation clause
declares that they shall include.
The West Bengal Government Premises (Regulation of Occupancy) Act, 1984
Dadaji Alias Dina vs Sukhdeobabu & Ors on 7 November, 1979
(See Dadaji v. Sukhdeobabu AIR
1980 SC 150; Reserve Bank of India v. Pearless General Finance
and Investment Co. Ltd. AIR 1987 SC 1023 and Mahalakshmi Oil
Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1989 SC 335). The inclusive
definition of "district judge" in Article 236(a) of the Constitution
has been very widely construed to include hierarchy of specialized
Civil Courts viz. Labour Courts and Industrial Courts which are
not expressly included in the definition.