Holding

The Act applies to all government premises, including industrial sheds, and the lease was automatically terminated under Section 3(2)(i) for the lessee’s violation of lease conditions.

Summary

M/s. Associated Indem Mechanical Pvt. Ltd. had been granted three 99‑year leases for industrial sheds by the West Bengal Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. The lease required the lessee to commence manufacturing within six months and to use the premises for that purpose. The lessee never started production; the sheds remained idle, electricity connections were disconnected and the lessee failed to pay rent. Notices were issued under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 and the lease was terminated under Section 3(2)(i) for violation of lease terms. The lessee challenged the cancellation in the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed the writ petitions; the Supreme Court examined whether the Act applied only to residential premises and whether the automatic termination was valid. The Court held that the Act’s definition of “premises” is wide and covers industrial and commercial premises owned by the government, and that the lessee’s breach automatically terminated the tenancy. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 applies only to residential premises or also to industrial/commercial premises.
Whether the lease deed was automatically terminated under Section 3(2)(i) of the Act due to the lessee’s failure to commence manufacturing and other breaches.
Whether the lessee is entitled to acquire ownership of the sheds under Clause VI(b) of the lease deed after 30 years.

Legislation cited

West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976s. 12, s. 2(a), s. 2(c), s. 2(f), s. 3(1), s. 3(2), s. 4
West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962

Subjects

lease terminationgovernment premisesindustrial shedWest Bengal Tenancy Regulation Actautomatic terminationinterpretation of "premises"evictionnon‑residential tenancy

Judgment

A M/S. ASSOCIATED INDEM MECHANICAL P. LTD.
v. \ ..
WEST BENGAL S.S.I.D.C. LTD. AND ORS.

JANUARY 5, 2007

B [G.P. MA THUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.]

West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulations) Act, 1976-
Ss. 2(a), (c) ands. 3(2)(1a)-Lease of industrial plots-Cancellation of
lease deed on violation of terms-Notice for eviction of lessee under
C section 3-Plea of lessee that the Act is applicable to residential premises
and not industrial sheds-Held : Definition of word 'premises' is very
comprehensive and wide-Section 3(2)(a) covers all kinds of leases,
commercial or industrial sheds-Thus, applicability of the Act not restricted
to residential buildings alone-It is applicable to non-residential and
D commercial premises as well-Unit is non-functioning and was lying close
for a long period, as such violation of terms of lease-Hence, tenancy of
lessee stood automatically terminated under Section 3(2)(1a).

Words and Phrases : 'Premises '-Meaning of in the context of section
2(c) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulations) Act,
E 1976.

Industrial sheds were demised in favour of the appellant for 99 years
by lease deed. Appellant did not commence production and/or manufacturing
activity. Notices were issued under section 3(1) of the West Bengal
F Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 to the appellant. By
another notice, lease deed was terminated and the Corporation took over
possession of the industrial sheds Appellant them undertook to commence
manufacturing activity and tender rent and thereafter was handed over the
possession. Even thereafter the appellant did not commence any
manufacturing activity and thus notices were issued to the appellant to hand
G over po~session of the industrial sheds. Corporation in pursuance to the
order of High Court held that the appellant was liable to be evicted from
the demised premises. Appellant filed a writ petition challenging the
cancellation of lease deed executed in its favour. The Single Judge of High
Court dismissed the writ petition. Division Bench upheld the order. Hence
H the present appeal.
174
'.:\
MIS. ASSOCIATED INDEM MECHANICAL P. LTD. v. W. BENGAL S.S.I.D.C.LTD. 175

Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
-~
~..,

HELD: I.I. The Preamble of the West Bengal Government Premises
(Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, says that it is an Act to provide for the
regulation of certain incidents of tenancy in relation to Government premises
in West Bengal. It does not say that the Act is meant for regulation of
residential tenancies alone. The definition of "Government premises" in B
section 2(a) is very wide. It means any premises which is owned by the State
Government or by a Government undertaking except the official residence of
:.. any person authorized to occupy any premises in consideration of the officer
# which he holds under the State Government or a Government undertaking.
Therefore, all kinds of premises whether commercial, industrial or
residential, if owned by the State Government or by a Government undertaking
c
would be covered by the definition except the official residence ofany person
authorized to occupy any premises in consideration of the office which he
holds under the State Government or a Government undertaking for the time
being. [Para 8] [182-G-H, 183-A-B]
D
1.2. The definition of the word "premises" in section 2(c) of the Act not
I..
.. 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 "scat in a room" or "gardens" or "godowns" by
E
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 F
'>--· 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 ita restricted
meaning. The opening part oft~e definition of the word "Premises" in section
G
2(c) employs the word "any" which is of a very wide meaning and primafacie
the use of it excludes limitation. [Para 10] [183-H, 184-A-D]

<~ Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick, AIR (19Sl) SC 293, relied
on. H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] l S.C.R.

A 1.3. The definition of premises in section 2(c) uses the word "includes"
at two places. 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 use 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
B interpretation clause declares that shall include. Therefore, there is no
warrant or justification for restricting the applicability of 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. [Para 10) [184-D-H]
c Dadaji v. Sukhdeobabu, AIR (1980) SC 150; Reserve Bank of India
v. Pearless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., AIR (1987) SC 1023;
Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, AIR (1989) SC 335 and
State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Association, AIR
(1998) SC 1233, relied on.
D 1.4. Section 3 of the Act provides for automatic termination of tenancy
in respect of a Government premises on the happening of certain
contingencies. Clause (i) contemplates the situation where the lessee has
'"<
violated the terms of the lease. This is couched in very wide terms and.no
inference can be drawn therefrom that it contemplates only a residential
E lease. In whatever way this clause in interpreted it cannot be restricted only
to a residential lease but would cover all kinds of leases including a
commercial or industrial lease. Clause (la) has been introduced to squarely
cover a situation where the lessee has built a house or has acquired an
apartment either in his own name or in the name of any member of his
family within a reasonable distance from Government premises under his
F tenancy. A sub-clause of a section introduced to cover a particular type of
contingency cannot cut down the scope or content of other clauses of the
same section or the main provisions of the Act nor can the addition of the
said sub-clause by way of a subsequent amendment whittle down or restrict
the applicability or reach of the whole enactment Therefore, clause (la) of
G sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act cannot led to an inference that the
Act °:oder consideration can have application to residential buildings alone
and not to any other type of bui.Iding or land or gardens or grounds etc.
where commercial or industrial activity is carried on. [Para 11] [185-B-E]

· 4.5. The Chairman of the Corporation, in pursuance of the order of
H Single Judge of High Court after considering the contemporaneous
,
-1
MIS. ASSOCIATED INDEM MECHANICAL P. LTD. v. W. BENGAL S.S.I.D.C.LTD. [MATHUR, J.] 177

...
~
-~ documents and the report of sub-Assistant Engineer, recorded a clear
finding that the unit is non-functioning one and was lying closed over a long
A
period. The report of the State Electricity Board that the commercial line
and the industrial line had been disconnected in 1994-96 and the total dues
of the appellant for the two service connections were Rs. 2,78,415 fully
corroborates the stand of the respondent Thus, there was a clear violation
of the terms of the lease and the tenancy of the appellant stood automatically
B
terminated under Section 3(2)(i) of the Act. [Para 13) (186-B-D]
L
> 1.6. The opening part of Clause VI of the lease deed says-"Subject
to the covenants contained" and thereafter there are two sub-clauses (a) and
(b). Therefore, sub-clause (b) of clause VI is not in absolute terms but is c
subject to the covenants enumerated in the earlier part of the lease deed.
Since it has been found as a fact that the appellant has contravened the
provisions of clauses 2(t)l and B of the lease deed, it cannot claim any right
under clause VI(b) and thus, is not entitled to acquire ownership of the
demised industrial sheds after expiry of 30 years. [Para 14) [186-E-FJ
D
CIVIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 22 of2007 .
..,
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2005 of the High Court
of Calcutta in A.P.O. No. 348/2004.
E
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Pijush K. Roy, G. Ramakrishna Prasad and Dilip
Kumar Das, Advs. with him for the Appellant.

Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv., Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam, Goodwill
Indeevar, Avijit Bhattacharjee and Saumya Kundu, Advs. with him for the F
.__ · Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G. P. MA THUR, J. : 1. Leave granted.
G
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the
judgment and order 13.12.2005 of a Division Bench of the Calcutta
High ,court by which the letters patent appeal filed by the appellant
was dismissed, affirming the judgment and order dated 16.8.2004 of a
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] l S.C.R.

A wherein challenge was laid to the cancellation of lease deed which had. been
executed in its favour.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition by the appellant
herein may be noticed in brief. The West Bengal Small Scale Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. (for short "Corporation") by three different
B indentures of lease each for a period of 99 years demised in favour of the
appellant Mis Associated Indem Mechanical Pvt. Ltd., three separate industrial
sheds bearing nos.Y-76, Y-73 and Y-72 at Baltikuri Industrial Estate, Howrah
on 9.2.1970, 26.5.1972 and3 l.8.1977 respectively. Clauses 2(t)l, 2(j) and3(B)
of the lease deed which are relevant for the controversy in hand are being
C reproduced below :-

"2(f)I. To use the demised premises as a place for carrying on
manufacturing business and/or purposes connected with any
manufacturing process including processing, manufacture or
assembling of machine, tools, implements, instruments, furnaces,
D heaters, ovens, scientific apparatus, inventions and other industrial
products.

20) To start manufacture and production as per Sub-Clauses (f)(l)
of this Clause 2, (if not already started) within six months from the
date of these presents or within any extended period which may be
E
granted by Government under exceptional circumstances.

3(B). If the rent hereby reserved or any part thereof shall remain
unpaid for six months after becoming payable or if any convents
on the part of the Lessee herein contained shall not be performed/
F observed or if the demised premises be not used by the Lessee for
purposes mentioned in Clause 2(f) hereof for a continuous period
of six months then and in any such event, it shall be lawful for the
lessor or the Government at any time thereafter to determine the
Lease and to re-enter upon the demised premises or any part
thereof in the name of the whole and thereupon this demise shall
G
absolutely determine without prejudice to the rights of the Lessor
or the Government in respect of breach of the Lessee's covenants
herein contained.
.,L
All the three lease deeds contain identical clauses. The Prescribed
H Authority sent a notice under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Government
MIS. ASSOCIATED INDEM MECHANICAL P. LTD.'" W. BENGALS.S.I.D.C.LTD. (MATHUR,J.] 179

Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act") to the A
appellant on 15 .3 .1999 as it failed to commence production and/or
manufacturing activity, but the notice was returned with the postal
endorsement "abolished". After about six months, the Prescribed Authority
issued another notice on 13.9.1999 by which the lease deed was terminated
and the appellant was asked to hand over possession of the industrial
sheds. The notice was returned with the remarks ''not known". The
B
Corporation, thereafter, took over possession of the plots on 25.2.2000.
However, on the representation made by the appellant and on furnishing
'r
) undertaking to commence manufacturing activity and tendering rent, the
possession was handed over back to it on 17.5.2000. Even thereafter the
appellant did not commence any manufacturing activity and consequently c
two notices under Section 3(1) of the Act were issued by the Prescribed
Authority on 29.5.2002 calling upon the appellant to hand over possession
of the industrial sheds. The appellant filed two writ petitions before the
Calcutta High Court which were disposed of by a learned Single Judge by
separate orders. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the appellant, a
D
direction was issued to the Chairman of the Corporation to give oral hearing
to the appellant. The Chairman of the Corporation after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant passed a detailed order on 11.9.2002
holding that the appellant was liable to be evicted from the demised
premises. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High
Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 11.9.2002 of the Chairman of the E
Corporation. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on
16.8.2004 and the said order was affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench
on 13.12.2005. It is these orders which are subject matter of challenge in the
present appeal.
F
4. Before we examine the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
parties, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the West Bengal
Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. Sections 2(a), (b),
(c), (f), 3(1)(2), 4 and 12 of the Act are reproduced below:-

2(a) "Government premises" means any premises which is owned G
by the State Government or by a Government undertaking but does
not include the official residence of any person authorized to
occupy any premises in consideration of the office which he holds
under the State Government or a Government undertaking for the
time being; H
Y-
\

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) I S.C.R.

A (b) "Government undertaking" means a body corporate constituted
by or under a Central or State Act which is under the administrative
control of the State Government or in which the State Government
has exclusive proprietary interest;

(c) "premises" means any building or hut and includes part of a
B building or hut and a seat in a room, let separately, and also
includes -

(i) the gardens, grounds and out-houses, if any,
appurtenant thereto,

c (ii) ariy 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;

(f) "tenant" means any person by whom the rent of any premises
D is, or but for a special contract would be, payable and includes in
the event of such person's death, such 9f his heirs as were
ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death.

3. Termination of tenancy- (1) Every tenancy held by a tenant
in respect of a Government premises shall stand terminated upon
E the expiry of the period referred to in a notice to quit served upon
such tenant in the prescribed manner,

(2) A tenancy in respect of a Government premises shall stand
automatically terminated without any notice to quit where the
tenant has, -
F
(i) violated the terms of the lease, or

(la) subsequently built a house or acquired (by purchase, gift,
inheritance, lease, exchange or otherwise) a house or an apartment,
either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family,
G within a reasonable distance from such Government premises.

Explanation - ................................. (omitted as not relevant)
Provided - ................................. (omitted as not relevant)
Provided - ................................. (omitted as not relevant)
H Provided further. (omitted as not relevant)
MIS. ASSOCIATED INDEM MECHANICAL P. LTD.'" W. BENGAL S.S.I.D.C.LTD. [MATIIUR,J.) 181

4. Restoration of possession- (1) Upon termination of a tenancy A
under any of the provisions of section 3 or upon a tenancy being.
void under section 3A, the tenant shall forthwith restore vacant
possession of the premises occupied by him in favour of the
prescribed authority.

B

-
(2) If the tenant fails to restore possession of the premises under
sub-section (1), the prescribed authority or any officer authorized
I
by him in this behalf may take such steps or use force as may be
necessary to take possession of the premises and may also enter
into such premises for the aforesaid purpose.
c
12. Act to override other laws - (1) The provisions of this Act
shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, or in any contract, express or
implied, or in any custom or usage to the contrary.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
D
foregoing provisions, the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 shall not be applicable to any
premises to which this Act applies.

The three provisos which are appended to sub-section (2) of Section E
3 of the Act deal with default in payment of rent, renewal of tenancy upon
deposit of all arrears of rent together with interest etc. and recovery of
arrears of rent, but they are not relevant for the decision of the controversy.
Section 13 lays down that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to decide or
deal with any question which is by or under the Act required to be decided F
or dealt with under the provisions of the Act.

5. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants has
submitted that the Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, is
applicable only to residential premises and not to industrial sheds which are
commercial in nature and the demised premises Y-76, Y-73 and Y-72 being G
industrial sheds and not residential premises, the provisions of the Act
under which the notice for eviction was issued by the Prescribed Authority
and possession was sought to be taken over by the Corporation can have
• no application. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred
to the definition of"premises" and "tenant" as given in Section 2(c) and (t) H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R.

A of the Act and also to the provisions contained in Section 3(2)(ia) of the Act
and has submitted that the whole Scheme of the Act shows that the same
can apply to residential premises only and can have no application to an
industrial shed. Learned counsel has elaborated his argument by submitting
that while defining the word "premises" in sub-section ( c) of Section 2 of
the Act, the words "building or hut and includes part of a building or hut"
B have been used. s;milarly, while defining "tenant" under sub-section (t) of
Section 2, the wNds "in the event of such person's death, such of his heirs
as were ordinarily residing with him" have been used, which show that what
is contemplated within the purview of the Act is a residential building and
not a commercial building or an industrial shed. It has been urged that the
c use of the words "house or an apartment" in clause (la) of sub-section (2)
of Section 3 unequivocally shows that the Act was intended to apply only
to residential buildings and not to a commercial building or an industrial
shed which has been leased out for carrying on manufacturing activity.

6. Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondent
D
Corporation, has submitted that the intention of the legislature is not to be
gathered by merely looking at few provisions of the Act but has to be
gathered from reading the entire Act which clearly shows that the Act was
intended to cover every kind of tenancy, whether it was for a residential
purpose or a commercial purpose or an industrial purpose. He has further
E submitted that different provisions of the Act, reference to which has been.
made by learned counsel for the appellant, have been included in order to
make the Act more comprehensive and elaborate and they take within their
sweep all kinds of situations.

F 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the contention raised by
learned counsel for the appellant that the Act is intended to apply only to
residential premises cannot be accepted.

8. The Preamble of the Act says that it is an Act to provide for the
G regulation of certain incidents of tenancy in relation to Government premises
in West Bengal. The Preamble does not say that the Act is meant for
regulation of residential tenancies alone. The definition of "Government
premises" in Section 2(a) is very wide. It means any premises-which is
owned by the State Government or by a Government undertaking except the
H official residence of any person authorized to occupy any premises in
MIS. ASSOCIATED INDEM MECHANICAL P. LTD. r. W. BENGAL S.S.I.D.C.LTD. [MATHUR, J.] 183

consideration of the office which he holds under the State Government or A
a Government undertaking. Therefore, all kinds of premises whether
commercial, industrial or residential, if owned by the State Government or by
a Government undertaking would be covered by the definition. But, it
specifically excludes the official residence of any person authorized to
occupy any premises in consideration of the office which he holds under
the State Government or a Government undertaking for the time being.
B

9. It may be mentioned here that the legislature has enacted another
Act viz., the West Bengal Government Premises (Regulation of Occupancy)
Act, 1984 and here the definition of the word "premises" as given in Section
2(i) of the Act reads as under:- c
2(i) "premises" means any building, shed or hut, used or intended
to be used for residential purposes, and includes part of a
building, shed or hut and a room or a seat in a room allotted
separately, and also includes -
D
(i) the gardens, grounds, outhouses, garages and
godowns, if any, appurtenant thereto, and

(ii) any furniture supplied or any fittings or fixtures affixed
for the use of the occupant of such building, garage, godown, E
shed, hut, room or seat in a room, as the case may be.

Though the definition of "premises" in the Act under consideration
(Act No.19 of 1976) and in Act No.21 of 1984 is almost the same, but in the

- substantive part the expression "used or intended to be used for residential
purposes" has been added in the later Act. The use of the expression "used
or intended to be used for residential purposes" clearly evinces the intention
F.

of the legislature that the 1984 Act shall apply only to residential buildings
in contradistinction to the Act under consideration viz., Act No.19of1976.
Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for
the appellant that the Act under consideration i.e. 1976 Act can have G
application only to residential buildings or that the same shall not apply to
non-residential buildings like industrial sheds or commercial buildings.

I 0. 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 H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 alsb 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
B 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
c 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".
D
Any is a word of very wide meaning and prima 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
E 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.
(See Dadaji v. Sukhdeobabu, AIR (1980) SC 150; Reserve Bank of India v.
F 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"districtjudge" 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. (See State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law
G 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.
H
MIS. ASSOCIATED INDEM MECHANICAL P. LTD. r. W. BENGAL S.S.l.D.C.LTD. (MATIIUR, J.) 185

11. The argument based on clause (I a) of sub-section (2) of A
Section 3 of the Act has hardly any substance. It is important to note that
the aforesaid clause was introduced in Section 3 of the Act by an amendment
made by West Bengal Act No.46 of 1980. Section 3 of the Act provides
for automatic termination of tenancy in respect of a Government premises
on the happening of certain contingencies. Clause (i) contemplates the
situation where the lessee has violated the terms of the lease. This is B
couched in very wide terms and no inference can be drawn therefrom that
it contemplates only a residential lease. In whatever way this clause is
interpreted it cannot be restricted only to a residential lease but would cover
all kinds ofleases including a commercial or industrial lease. Clause (la) has
been introduced to squarely cover a situation where the lessee has built a c
house or has acquired an apartment either in his own name or in the name
of any member of his family within a reasonable distance from Government
premises under his tenancy. A sub-clause of a section introduced to cover
a particular type of contingency cannot cut down the scope or content of
other clauses of the same section or the main provisions of the Act nor can
D
the addition of the said sub-clause by way of a subsequent amendment
whittle down or restrict the applicability or reach of the whole enactment.
Therefore, clause (1 a) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act cannot lead
to an inference that the Act under consideration can have application to
residential buildings alone and not to any other type of building or land or
gardens or grounds etc. where commercial or industrial activity is carried on. E

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 Ben~h of the Calcutta High Court had
held that the Act applied only to residential premises and, therefore, it was
• F
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 G
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 H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R.

A 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.

13. It may be mentioned here that the Chairman of the Corporation, in
pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ
petitions which were filed by the appellant at the earlier stage, after
B considering the contemporaneous documents and the report of the concerned
sub-Assistant Engineer, incharge of Baltikuri Industrial Estate, has recorded
a clear finding that the unit is non-functioning one and was lying closed
over a long period. The report of the West Bengal State Electricity Board
showed that the commercial line and the industrial line had been disconnected
C in 1994-96 and the total dues of the appellant for the two service connections
were Rs.2, 78,415. The fact that electricity connection had been disconnected
several years back fully corroborates the stand of the respondent that the
unit is lying closed for a long period and no manufacturing activity was
being carried on. Thus, there was a clear violation of the terms of the lease
and the tenancy of the appellant stood automatically terminated under
Section 3(2)(i) of the Act.

14. Learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant was entitled '<
to ownership of two sheds after expiry of a period of 30 years as provided
in clause VI(b) of the lease deed. The opening part of Clause VI of the lease
E deed says "Subject to the covenants hereinbefore contained" and thereafter
there are two sub-clauses (a) and (b). Therefore, sub-clause (b) of clause
VI is not in absolute terms but is subject to the covenants enumerated in
the earlier part of the lease deed. Since it has been found as a fact that
the appellant has contravened the provisions of clauses 2(f)l and B of the
p lease deed, it cannot claim any right under clause Vl(b ). Therefore, the
appellant is not entitled to exercise the option to acquire ownership of the
.
demised industrial sheds and his claim in that regard is wholly baseless.

15. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in the appeal,
which is hereby dismissed with costs. The interim order granted by this
G Court on 17 .2.2006 is vacated.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.