SM. GITA MITRA Vs. S.P. GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs in the nature of 'certiorari' and 'mandamus' for quashing of certain orders dated 2 -6 -1949, 23 -12 -1949 and 25 -7 -1950 purported to be made under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948 (Act 38 of 1948), and for direction upon the opposite parties 1 to 4 to forbear from giving effect to the said orders.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of premises. No. 1/2 Lovelock Street in the suburbs of Calcutta. After purchasing the said premises the petitioner repaired and improved the said premises at a cost of about Rs. 4,000/ - and converted the same into a good dwelling house consisting of 6 living rooms, 2 covered verandahs, one open verandah, 2 lavatories and one servants room and it was surrounded by boundary walls. The premises stands on land measuring about 3 cottahs and its estimated value is said to be Rs. 40,000/ -. In December 1947 the petitioner let out the premises to one Sashi Prova Debi at a rent of Rs. 200/ - per month, from 16 -12 -1947 as a monthly tenant. Sashi Prova vacated the premises at the end of May 1948. Subsequently the petitioner let out the premises to respondents 5 and 6 at a rent of Rs. 150/ - per month plus occupier's share of taxes. The said tenancy commenced from 15 -6 -1948. The said respondents duly paid rent at the said rate up to the end of June 1949 but put off payment of rent for the months of July, August and September 1949 on various pretexts. It appears, however, that in the meantime on 24 -2 -1949 the respondent 5 filed an application for fixation, of standard rent before the Rent Controller, Calcutta, under the provisions of Act 38 of 1948 which came into force on 1 -12 -1948. On 5 -3 -1949 a notice of the application was sent by registered post from the Rent Controller's office to the petitioner c/o S.K. Ghosh at the address 28/1 Allenby Road which is the address of the petitioner's father's residence. It may be pointed out at this stage that the petitioner is a married lady and she resides with her husband at No. 23 Bechu Chatterjee Street, Calcutta and was actually residing at her husband's place at the time the said notice was sent to the address of her father. It appears that the said registered letter was returned through the Post Office with the endorsement of the postal peon 'Refused'. The Rent Controller fixed the hearing of the application which was numbered as Case No. 748A of 1949, on 25 -4 -1949. On 27 -5 -1949 an Inspection is alleged to have been carried outby the Inspector of the Rent Controller. The petitioner's case is that such inspection was not made in her presence or in the presence of any of her representatives. On 2 -6 -1949 the Rent Controller heard the case 'ex parte' and fixed the standard rent at Rs. 35/ -per month with effect from 1 -2 -1949. In October 1949 the petitioner's father wrote from, Hazaribagh Road two letters to Mr. S.N. Chowdhury, Solicitor, (who had introduced the tenants respondents 5 and 6 to the petitioner's father) requesting Mr. Chowdhury to realise the rents from July to September from the tenants. On 24 -11 -1949 Mr. Chowdhury informed the petitioner's father that respondents 5 and 6 had applied for fixation of standard rent and such rent had been fixed at Rs. 35/ - per month long ago. It is alleged that the petitioner and her father came to know of the order of 2 -6 -1949 for the first time on 24 -11 -1949. On 5 12 -1949 the petitioner made an application for review of the order of 2 -6 -49 and on 9 -12 -1949 the petitioner's Solicitors wrote a letter to the Presidency Post -Master making inquiries about the registered letter sent by the Rent Controller. On 23 -12 -1949 the Rent Controller dismissed the application for review on the ground that as it was not made within 30 days from the date of the order as required by Rule 11, West Bengal Rent Control Rules 1949 the application could not be entertained. He further held that as the Rent Controller was not a Court the petitioner could not take advantage of Section 18, Limitation Act upon which she relied for the purpose of getting an extension of the period of limitation as prescribed in the said Rule 11 and by Section 32, Rent Control Act, 1948. On 5 -5 -1950 the Superintendent of Post Office intimated to the petitioner's Solicitor that the postman who carried the letter for delivery did not care to verify the correctness of the alleged refusal and that consequently disciplinary action was being taken against the said Postman. The petitioner preferred an appeal from the order of the Rent Controller to the District Judge at Alipore. The said appeal was heard by respondent 3 who was the Subordinate Judge at Alipore on 25 -7 -1950. Respondent 3, however, confirmed the order of respondent 1 and dismissed the said appeal. The petitioner challenges the orders made by respondents 1 and 3 as illegal and as being orders which are erroneous on the face of the record.

(3.) IT was further contended by Mr. Mukherjee that at any rate the provisions of the West Bengal Rent Control Act 17 of 1950 nave put the matter beyond all doubt by enacting in Section 32 that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority act as judicial officers and may exercise powers given to Courts by Sections 151 and 152. Civil P. C. and by further providing in Sub -section (5) of Section 32 that the Limitation Act applies to proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.