SEFALI ROY CHOWDHARY Vs. A K DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Calcutta High Court setting aside in revision the finding of the trial Court on the issue whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties in a suit for ejectment. The issue which arises on the interaction of two statutes, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which repeals the earlier Act but keeps it alive for proceedings pending on the date of repeal, involves the question, - is the right conferred on the sub-tenant by the 1956 Act of being declared a tenant directly under the superior landlord available to a sub-tenant against whom a suit for ejectment was pending when that Act came into force The appeal turns on the answer to this question.

(2.) The material facts leading to the impugned order are these. The respondent was a tenant of premises No. 17/1E Gopal Nagar Road, Alipore, Calcutta, and his landlord was one Jagabandhu Saha, the owner of the house. Dilip Narayan Roy Chaudhury was a sub-tenant under the respondent in respect of the ground floor flat paying a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. The respondent instituted a suit in the Munsif's court as Alipore on March 21, 1956 when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 was in force, seeking to evict Roy Chaudhury on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent. This act was a temporary statute due to expire on March 31, 1956, but on that date the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, was brought into operation repealing the temporary Act before it expired. The material part of Section 40 of the 1956 Act which repealed the 1950 Act is as follows:

(3.) In the meantime, on August 21, 1956 the respondent had made an application under Section 14 (4) of the 1950 Act in the suit for eviction which was pending. Section 14 (4) of the 1950 Act permitted the landlord to make an application in the suit for an order on the tenant to deposit month by month the rent at the rate at which it was last paid and also the arrears of rent, if any, and provided that on failure to deposit the arrears of rent or the rent for any month within the period prescribed for such deposits, the court would make an order striking out the tenant's defence against ejectment so that the tenant would be in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to ejectment. On this application the Munsiff on September 26, 1956 directed the appellant to deposit a certain sum as arrears of rent and also rent month by month at the rate of Rs. 75/-. After the declaration of tenancy under S. 16 (3), Roy Chaudhary was permitted to amend this written statement in the suit by adding a paragraph questioning the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself. It is unnecessary to refer to the various proceedings in the suit that followed in the course of which the High Court was moved more than once by either party. On January 24, 1956 Roy Chaudhury died and the present appellants were substituted in his place in the suit as his heirs and legal representatives. On November 1, 1965 the Munsif framed an additional issue, being issue No. 9, which was as follows: