LAWS(CAL)-1951-3-17

GORACHAND MULLICK Vs. SHAIK KALLO

Decided On March 07, 1951
GORACHAND MULLICK Appellant
V/S
SHAIK KALLO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appln. for an order that the deft., his servants & agents, be restrained by an injunction from taking any steps or proceedings in respect of the appln. now pending before the Rent Controller, Calcutta, being appln. No. 590 of 1951. The facts are briefly as follows :

(2.) The ptlf. is the owner of premises No. 112 A, Harrison Road. The deft. is the tenant of a bare plot of land or a plot of land with a hut, which is a matter of dispute. On the footing that the tenancy relates to a bare plot of land, the pltf. has instituted this suit against the deft. for ejectment. The deft. claims that there is a hut on the laud & has sought protection under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. There can be no doubt that in this suit, the nature of the tenancy will have to be decided, since upon such finding will depend the question as to whether the pltf. can get a decree for possession at all. The pltf. relies on a letter, said to be written by the deft. to the pltf. dated 19-1-1950. If this letter is genuine, it sets out the tenancy agreement between the parties & describes the premises as 'vacant land'. The case of the deft. is that it is not genuine letter, not in the sense that he did not sign it, but under the following circumstances. He says that in or about July 1950, the pltf. made him to sign two letters on the false representation that they were required for reducing the enhanced rates of assessment by the Corp. & in the hope that if the assessment was reduced he would be allowed to build additional structures. He says that the letters were typed at the pltf's. house & there signed by the deft. The contents were neither read out, nor explained to him, & he says that he is illiterate & unacquainted with the English language, & he would not have signed, had he known the contents. Now, whether this story is true or not, I cannot decide at present. But I have before me the fact, that the pltf. did appeal against the assessment order of the Corp., & tried to prove before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Ct., that the tenancy related to a vacant land & one Karim Mohammad, Asst. of the tenant, gave evidence. The learned Chief Judge, however, did not accept the contention put forward before him & dismissed the appeal.

(3.) I cannot say, therefore, that the matter is quite beyond dispute. After instituting the suit, the pltf. made an appln. under Ch. XIIIA of our Rules, for summary judgment, but the tenant was given unconditional leave to defend by Mukharji J. The tenant has now made an appln. before the Rent Controller for fixation of the standard rent. Mr. Deb, appearing for the petnr., urges that the issues in this suit & that before the Rent Controller are the same. He says that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the point whether the deft. is a tenant in respect of a vacant piece of land or not, & the proceedings before the Rent Controller is vexatious & an abuse of the processes of Court. He further says that it is very inconvenient that two tribunals should proceed to decide this very point & it might be that there would be two conflicting decisions & this should be prevented by the issue of an injunction restraining the deft. from proceeding before the Rent Controller. Mr. Deb relies on 'R'. v. 'Hackney', Islington & Stoke Newington Rent Tribunal; Ex parte Keats' (1950) 2 All. E. R. 138. In that case, there was a written tenancy agreement, whereby the demised premises was to be used as a tailoring establishment. The English Landlord & Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949, relates only to dwelling houses, & as such, the tribunal had no jurisdiction in the case of premises used for commercial purposes. The tribunal appears to have had no jurisdiction to take evidence on oath. Nevertheless, the tribunal proceeded to invest themselves with jurisdiction, & solemnly decided that the document was a 'sham' one. In an appln. for the issue of a writ of certiorari, Lord Goddard said as follows :