MUKTI NATH JHA Vs. SMRITI RANJAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner Mukti Nath Jha challenging the legality of the judgment and order dated 22nd December. 1995 passed by the Ld. Asst. District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 53 of 1995. By that order the Ld. Asst. District Judge reversed an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Howrah in P.T. Case No. 38 of 1992 which was filed by the present petitioner Mukti Nath Jha before the Rent Controller, Howrah for fixation of fair rent in respect of the disputed premises.

(2.) Being aggrieved by that order dated 25th January. 1995 of the Ld. Addl. Rent Controller the O.P. -landlord preferred an appeal before the Ld. District Judge, Howrah which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 53/ 1995 and transferred to the Court of Ld. Asst. District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah for disposal. The Ld. Asst. District Judge after hearing both sides passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd December, 1995 allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the Ld. Addl. Rent Controller.

(3.) Being aggrieved thereby again the tenant has preferred the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Court below as illegal, improper and liable to be set aside. The contention of the applicant -tenant has been that the Court below assumed jurisdiction erroneous and has acted in excess of his jurisdiction while giving the verdict that the application for fixation of fair rent is barred by the principle of res judicata. It is the further contention of the applicant that the Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction by ignoring the Commissioner's report and by holding that the same is violative of Sec. 10 of the W.B.P.T. Act and also of the principles of natural justice. The applicant has also criticised the observation of the Court below as arbitrary to the effect that the Rent Controller has no power to appoint an Advocate -Commissioner according to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. This was more so in view of the fact that the appellant -O.P. -landlord had not challenged the said Commissioner's report before the Ld. Rent Controller.