Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sandeep Shukla (Teacher)     09 June 2014

About w.b.p.t. act

From when is the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Amendment Act, 2002 effective?

Is it true that in the amendment act, cut off rent for residential properties was increased to Rs. 6500 from Rs. 2000 in the 1997 Act? Was there any such cut off amount in the 1956 Act?



 6 Replies

Dr J C Vashista (Lawyer)     09 June 2014

Academic query

Sandeep Shukla (Teacher)     09 June 2014

No sir, actually the above query is for a purpose. I am suppossed to take a call on which if at all of the W.B. Tenancy Acts, pertains to a  Tenancy agreement made in 1994 and expired in 2000 (i.e. before the amendment act 2002) took place. The rent for the above place was greater than 2000 but less than 6,500 at the time of expiry of agreement. Therefore on the basis of this information I am suppossed to answer whether the aforesaid agreement falls under the Tenancy Acts (and which one) or Transfer of property Act.

Anand Bali Adv. (Advocate Solicitor & Consultant)     09 June 2014

Again it is an Academic query.

Sandeep Shukla (Teacher)     09 June 2014

Based on this information a plaint has to be made out for the eviction of this tenant . Will the suit fall under any of the WBPT Acts or not. If yes, eviction under terms of which Act?  Rent was greater than 2000 and less than 6,500 both at the beginning and end of tenancy. Tenancy agreement was unregistered and expired on 2000. Tenant refused to vacate after the end of tenancy agreement and landlord has accepted rent. But recently landlord has finally decided to go for eviction and has stopped taking any rent.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     12 June 2014

If your query is not academic, you may approach a local lawyer conversant in rent control issues to have his opinion and further remedies to the issue.

Sandeep Shukla (Teacher)     14 June 2014

Well, I was the opinion that forums such as this were meant so that one does not have to rush to a lawyer for every small piece of information. Besides it can also serve the purpose for cross-checking an opinion which has already been received.

While not aimed at any of the above comments I always subscribe to the view that any comment be it in life or in a forum which is obvious, unhelpful or unnecessary should be desisted from. And regarding acedemic queries though my above question was not meant to be so, yet if it serves for a particular individual's enlightenment then I don't see any reason for somebdy not sharing it if he has the answer to it. Then for a person not willing to share such information without material gains always has the option to keep silent or hunt in more greener pastures.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query