T S R SARMA Vs. NAGENDRA BALA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Reference to a Full Bench by Mitter and Guha JJ. of a question arising under the West 'Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950, on which they found themselves in disagreement with the view taken earlier by another Division Bench. As the question arose in a Civil Revision Case, the entire case has been referred, as required by the Appellate Side Rules.

(2.) The material facts are as follows. The opposite party, Nagendra Bala Choudhurani, is the owner of premises No. 134 Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta and the first floor of that building is in the occupation of a body called the South India Club which holds the same as a tenant. On 23-3-1950, Nagendra Bala filed a suit against the Club for ejectment on the ground that she required possession of the premises for the purpose of building a second floor and also on the ground that the members of the Club had made several unauthorised constructions and had also been misusing the premises in various ways. It was not alleged that the rent was in arrear. The Rent Act in force at the time was the Act of 1948 which continued to be in force till 31-3-1950 when it was repealed by the Act of 19S0 and the latter Act itself came into force on the same day. The Club entered appearance in the suit on 24-4-1950 and after obtaining some adjournments, filed its written statement on 21st June. Before that, however, on 8-6-1950, the plaintiff Nagendra Bala had made an application under Section 14 (4) of the Act of 1950, praying for an order on the defendant . to pay the arrears of rent which she alleged had fallen duo since April, 1950 and also to go on paying the rent thereafter month by month. That application was disposed of on 23-8-1950 by a consent order according to which the defendant was to pay the rent month by month within the statutory period, commencing with the rent for August. It appears that the rent for the previous months had already been deposited with the Rent Controller. Thereafter on 7-2-1951, the plaintiff made an application for striking out the defence on the allegation that the defendant had committed default. By an order dated 16-3-1951, the learned 4th Additional Subordinate Judge of Ali-pore held that the Defendant had defaulted more than once and directed the defence to be struck out. Against that order this Court was moved and the present Rule taken out.

(3.) I may pause here for a moment to point out that although the defendant in the suit is the South India Club and the written statement has been filed by the Club in its own name, the petitioner in the present Rule is one T. S. R. Sarma. It is true that he describes himself as a Joint General Secretary of the Club and purports to be making the petition on the Club's behalf, but it is difficult to see how he could do so consistently with the plea taken in the written statement that the Club was not an incorporated body and therefore could not be, or be treated, as a tenant. As however, a tenant, under the definition contained in the Rent Act, is a 'person' and 'person' as] defined in the Bengal General Clauses Act, includes an 'association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not', we shall treat the petition as made by the Club itself. On any other view, the petition would be liable to be thrown out at once as a petition made by a stranger to the suit, because there is nothing to show that Sarma is even a member of the Club.