SHYAMA DEVI Vs. RAM LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the plaintiffs for an injunction restraining the defendant from taking any steps in proceedings instituted by him before the Rent Controller, Calcutta for the fixation of standard rent being Case No. 978A of 1950 in the Court of the Rent Controller and also for an injunction rest-training the defendant from dismantling certain flxures or from selling or disposing of the same and further for restraining the defendant from assigning or subletting the premises let out to him and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from casing further damages to the walls or floor of the demised premises. the suit out of which this application arises was filed on the 12th of June, 1950 and is for a declaration that the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of certain rooms delineated in a plan marked as annexure 'A' to the plaint, on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- and on terms and conditions contained in an agreement dated the 7th June, 1947 and also for a declaration that certain fixtures in the demised premises belong to the plaintiffs, for damages and for injunction in the forms that I have stated above and certain other reliefs.

(2.) The facts are that the plaintiffs are the owners of premises No. 224, Harrison Road, Calcutta. Prior to June 1947 one Gulam Md. Ambia was a tenant in respect of a shop room on the ground floor of the said premises which was divided by partitions into three rooms. In June 1947 the defendant became a monthly tenant in respect of the said shop room in place of the said Gulam Md. Ambia and also another room on certain terms and conditions embodied in a written agreement dated the 7th of June 1947. Pursuant to such agreement the defendant went into possession of the demised premises and paid rent up to March 1950. On the 13th of May, 1950 the defendant made an application before the Rent Controller, Calcutta, for fixing standard rent in respect of his tenancy. In the petition filed before the Rent Controller the defendant has stated that he is a tenant in respect of only that portion of the premises which was in the possession of Gulam Md. Ambia but he was wrongly made to sign the agreement dated the 7th of June, 1947 stating therein that he was being given a additional room in respect of his tenancy. the plaintiffs state in their petition before me that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide these questions as to the area or extent of the tenanted premises. It is further stated that the defendant is wrongly claiming title to certain fittings & fixtures in the tenanted rooms and is dismantling these fixtures and is causing damage to the floor and walls of the rooms. It is also stated that the defendant is attempting to sublet or assign the tenancy in violation of a covenant not to assign or sublet the same.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. R. C. Deb, the learned counsel for the applicants that the Rent Controller has no power to decide disputes or questions as to title or the extent of the tenancy. His jurisdiction is confined to determination of the question of quantum of rent payable in respect of the premises. the questions as to title and area can be determined in the present suit filed in this Court and the decision of this Court will operate as res judicata in respect of matters decided. Any decision by the Rent Controller in respect of such matters will not however operate as res judicata so as to bar trial of those questions in this suit. there is thus a likelihood of there being conflicting decisions in respect of the same matters by the Rent Controller's Court and by this Court. Further if the Rent Controller fixed a standard rent on the basis of the findings arrived at by him on the question of title and extent of the tenancy and his decision is taken up in appeal in the manner prescribed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1950 and a decision is arrived at in such appeal, such a decision will become final and conclusive and even if this Court comes to a different finding in respect of the title or extent of the tenancy in this suit, there will be no remedy open to the petitioners to have the decision of the Rent Controller or the Appellate Tribunal modified on the strength of or in the light of the findings of this Court. In the circumstances, the petitioners submitted that the defendant should be restrained from taking any steps in the proceedings taken by him and pending before the Rent Controller.