MANNULAL SHAW Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE constitutional validity of subsection (5) of section 30 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the point which calls for my determination in this Rule. The respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are the owners landlords of premises No. 3, Convent Garden Road, in the town of Serampore. Since the time of their predecessor-in-interest, Akshoy Kumar Das, since deceased, one Ram Nazar Pandey was a tenant in the said premises. The said Ram Nazar Pandey inducted the two petitioners, as subtenants, in two different portions of the said premises and such sub-letting is said to have taken place long before March 31, 1956, when the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 came into operation. Section 16 of the Act provides for notification of creation and termination of sub-tenancies and sub-section (2) of section 16, which is material for the purposes of this Rule, reads as follows :-

(2.) ON January 10, 1957, the respondents Nos. 4 to 8 filed a petition of complaint before the Rent Controller, Serampore, against their tenant Ram Nazar Pandey and also against the two petitioners and several other subtenants in the premises alleging that Ram Nazar Pandey had inducted subtenants in the premises before the commencement of the Act but neither he nor the sub-tenants notified the sub-tenancy to the landlord under the provisions of section 16 (2) of the Act and as such rendered themselves liable to the penal provisions of section 30 (5) of the Act.

(3.) THE petitioners filed a petition of objection contending, inter alia, that the application was not maintainable in law and was also barred by limitation. The Rent Controller upheld the objection of the petitioners that the complaint was barred by limitation and dismissed the petition of complaint. The respondents Nos. 4 to 8 preferred an appeal against the order before the learned District Judge of Hooghly, who allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for disposal according to law. The learned District Judge set aside the finding as to limitation with the following observations:-