Air Conditioning Charges Are Integral To Rent; Tenancy Not Protected Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act — Calcutta High Court Orders Eviction

“Rent Includes Charges For Essential Amenities — Tenancy Governed By Transfer Of Property Act, Not Tenancy Act”, Calcutta High Court, in a landmark judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar, ruled that the tenancy in question is not governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, but rather by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as the rent exceeded the statutory ceiling of ₹10,000 per month.

The Court categorically held that air-conditioning (AC) charges form an essential component of rent, as AC was indispensable for the enjoyment of the premises. Consequently, the eviction suit filed by the landlord was decreed, overturning the trial court’s decision.

“Charges For Air Conditioning, Being Essential For Enjoyment Of Tenancy, Are Rent Within Meaning Of Section 3(f) Of The 1997 Act”

Background of the Case

The dispute arose out of cross suits between a landlord (Celica Developers Pvt. Ltd.) and tenant (M/s Wadhwana). The landlord sought eviction claiming that the tenancy was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, as the monthly rent—if AC charges were included—exceeded ₹10,000, removing the protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act).

The tenant contended that the basic rent was only ₹2,000, with AC charges billed separately to a third party (Urban Services Pvt. Ltd.), and therefore, the tenancy remained within the WBPT Act’s protection.

Whether AC Charges Form Part Of Rent

The High Court observed: “It is not possible to run the suit shop room without AC, which was provided in a centrally circulated manner.” [Para 60]

The Court emphasized that the AC charges stemmed from an undertaking given by the tenant itself before the Supreme Court in earlier litigation, making it a binding condition of the tenancy. Referring to that, the Court held:

“The AC service…has been admittedly an integral part of the tenancy. There is no independent jural relationship between the tenant and the AC service provider.” [Para 64]

It concluded: “AC has been an essential amenity for use and enjoyment of the tenancy. Charges for such essential amenities must be held to be an essential component of rent.” [Para 78]

The Court drew support from Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, which defines rent as “money payable for enjoyment of property”. It ruled:

“The term ‘rent’ under Section 3(f) of the WBPT Act must be construed as total money payable for enjoyment of the premises, including charges for essential amenities.” [Para 78]

It further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pushpa Sen Gupta vs. Susma Ghose (1990) 2 SCC 651, which held that rent includes service charges for electricity, water, and other amenities necessary for enjoyment of the property.

“Objection As To Maintainability Based On Order II Rule 2 CPC Is Without Merit” — Court Rejects Tenant’s Technical Objections

The respondent had argued that the eviction suit was barred because a prior suit on similar grounds was withdrawn without liberty under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.

The High Court dismissed this contention, stating: “The earlier suit was based on the premise that the tenant was governed by the 1956 Tenancy Act, whereas the current suit arises because the rent exceeded the ceiling under the 1997 Act. Hence, the cause of action is different.” [Para 35]

It further held that: “There is no bar under Order II Rule 2 or res judicata, as the previous suit was withdrawn without adjudication on merits.” [Para 39]

“Absence Of Board Resolution Authorizing Director Is A Curable Defect” — No Bar Under Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC

The tenant argued that the eviction suit was invalid because there was no board resolution authorizing the director who signed the plaint.

The Court rejected this, holding: “Such technical objections must be raised at the outset. They are curable defects. The failure to raise them at trial precludes their invocation at the appellate stage.” [Para 44]

It reaffirmed the settled principle: “Any director who is capable of deposing to the facts may sign and verify pleadings on behalf of a company.” [Para 41]

The Court decisively concluded: “The tenancy is not governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 but by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plaintiff’s notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is valid and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction.” [Para 80]

All appeals by the landlord were allowed, and the cross-objection by the tenant was dismissed.

The Court added:

“For a period of one month from the date of judgment, no steps for evicting and/or disturbing possession of the respondent shall be taken by the appellant, in view of their assurance.” [Later Part]

Key Takeaways

• AC charges are part of rent if they are integral to the enjoyment of the premises.

• Tenancies where the total rent (including such charges) exceeds ₹10,000 are not protected by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

• Objections based on lack of authorization or previous suits withdrawn are curable and irrelevant if not timely raised.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2025