‘Pay the occupier’s share’

I have an office in Dalhousie. My landlady filed a suit for ejection but she was not granted decree. I have been paying maintenance equivalent to office rent every month, which is almost 100 per cent of the rent. But municipal tax, it appears, is not being paid either by the occupier or the landlady since inception for more than 20 years. Does the newly amended Tenancy Act apply to our case when the landlady has filed an appeal before the High Court? Should I continue to pay the entire amount of monthly maintenance bill as otherwise the electricity line will be disconnected, in view of the new amended Act? Should I approach the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to find out my occupier’s share of municipal tax or should I wait for the verdict of the Calcutta High Court?

Name and address withheld

The expert: No further proceeding on the same ground can be initiated against the tenant under the new Act till the appeal filed by the landlady is pending before the high court. Only after the disposal of the appeal can she take further steps. Regarding municipal tax, you may approach the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and pay the occupier’s share. Electric connection cannot be taken off for non-payment of maintenance but you must pay for power consumption recorded in your meter. If you don’t have a separate meter, you may apply for one without the landlord’s consent. Make sure you have the documents to prove your tenancy.

Dangerous line

I am residing in a flat in a multi-storeyed building. I got an electric line from WBSEB through an old and existing line provided by ex-owner w.e.f. August 18, 2001. The flat-owners do not have any legal body like a cooperation or association. After purchasing the flats in May 2001, the flat owners constituted an informal building committee which was dissolved sometimes. The committee decided to take a joint electric cable line for our own convenience and most owners including myself, signed an application in July 2001 and submitted the same to WBSEB authorities. Meanwhile, on July 22, 2001, a section of the flat owners forcibly occupied a section of the outside wall and balcony and installed an electric cable line by providing hooks and brackets. At the same time my wife and I tried to stop the unauthorised act to no avail. The disputed cable line was ultimately commissioned by WBSEB on December 29, 2001. The facility that I enjoyed earlier was unilaterally withdrawn and a new line provided. The new line has damaged my wall and balcony. Now it is inconvenient, even dangerous, to dry our clothes in the balcony. I have submitted written complaints to the building committee and suggested ways and means through alternative methods for the line, but in vain.

Finding no alternative, I sent an objection in writing to WBSEB on December 3, 2003. But they have taken no action. Is there any legal action I can take?

K.K. Sengupta
Khanjanchak, Midnapore

The expert: According to you, in July 2001 ? which is about three-and-a-half-years ago ? flat owners forcibly occupied a portion and the outside wall of your balcony. You should have taken appropriate legal action against WBSEB and other persons concerned before installation of the new connection and withdrawal of the facility you enjoyed. But you sent your objection in writing to WBSEB only on December 3, 2003, which was more than two years after the incident. Now, you must write to the WBSEB authority urging it to take immediate steps for the removal of connection cables off your balcony wall. Send a copy of the letter to the officer-in-charge of your local police station, requesting him to take action against those who forcibly occupied a portion of your premises. But in any case, you have to explain the reason of inordinate delay in taking in taking any step against the offenders. In case of inaction on the part of the police and WBSEB, you can move an application before the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Fair and square

I am a tenant of a shop on the ground floor and of an office on the third floor of the premises in Bentinck Street in Calcutta. I have been asked by the landlord to increase the rent under the new Tenancy Act. I need your advice on the following:

According to Section 17 (4A) and 17 (4B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997, as amended by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act 2002, the following conditions have to be fulfilled for the calculation of increased rent in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

1) The tenancy should be subsisting for 20 years or more/ 10 years or more.

2) Premises should be constructed on or before 1984.

3) Cut-off date for calculation of enhanced rents is July 1, 1976 or July 1, 1986.

4) Enhanced rent to be calculated at five times or three times under the said Act.

My query is whether the tenancy subsisting date or cut-off date or both will be considered for increasing the rent. If not then what would be the procedure?

S.R. Agarwal,
Address withheld

The expert: As per Sections 17(4A) and 17(4B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as amended in 2002, it is clear that both conditions are to be applied to determine fair rent. If the tenant can prove that tenancy in respect of the shop and the other room is not associated, then the increase of rent (or fair rent) will be determined separately as per the said provisions. Moreover, sub-section(6) of Section 17 states that where none of the foregoing provisions of this Section applies, fair rent shall be reasonably calculated with regard to the situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided there. In any case, the tenant cannot escape paying an enhanced rent.

More or less

My landlord recently served a notice on me and on the other sub-tenants of the premises who are plain tenant/ lessee under an unregistered tenancy agreement and asked us to enhance the rent under Section 17 (4A) of the newly introduced West Bengal Tenancy Act duly amended. My immediate landlord had obtained a lease from his lessor (superior landlord) for 25 years which has expired and no renewal option was therein. The superior landlord had filed a suit in the court of law for the vacant possession of the entire premises and claimed for profit and other related claims against our immediate landlord wherein we, the tenants, were also made party by the superior landlord.

As per the court orders, our immediate landlord was permitted to collect the rent from us. Do we come under Section 17 (4A) of the new Act and is our landlord entitled to get enhanced rent under it? Please note the suit against our immediate landlord by the superior landlord is still pending and during the pendency of the ejectment suit we have enhanced the rent twice at 10 per cent after the expiry of every five years as per said unregistered tenancy agreement.

Ashok Mukherjee,
Address withheld

The expert: It appears that a legal proceeding is already pending before the court and as per its order, your landlord (the lessee) is collecting rent from you. The lessee can collect enhanced or fair rent from you only if the court passes such an order on his application. Moreover, you have increased the rent as per your agreement with your landlord. There is no need to pay more until the disposal of the suit pending before the court.