JUMRATI Vs. S B BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Shaikh Jumrati was a tenant of premises No. 64 Upper Circular Road under opposite party, S.B. Banerjee, on a monthly rental of Rs. 91/4/-. The tenant sub-let four parts of the premises separately to sub-tenants 'and retained the remaining part of it for his own occupation. In four separate applications made by the sub-tenants under Section 16(3) of the , West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the Rent Controller passed orders declaring that the interest of the tenant Shaikh Jumrati in respect of the portions of the premises sub-let by him do cease and that the sub-tenants do become the direct tenants of the landlord as from January 14, 1959. The Rent Controller found that the reasonable rent payable in respect of the four direct tenancies should be Rs. 17-0-9, Rs. 9/-, Rs. 42/6/- and Rs. 13-15-9 per month respectively and he fixed the rent payable in respect of the direct tenancies accordingly. The Rent Controller also found that the reasonable rent of the rooms in the occupation of the tenant Shaikh Jumrati should be Rs. 102-0-6 pies but that in view of Section 8(1) (e) of the Act the total rent payable for the entire premises No. 64, Upper Circular Road, could not exceed Rs. 91/4/- plus 10% thereof and that consequently the rent payable by Shaikh Jumrati should be fixed at Rs. 16/-. On appeal by the landlord, the Appellate Tribunal increased the Rent payable in respect of one of the direct tenancies from Rs. 9/- to Rs. 11/-. The Appellate Tribunal also held that Section 8 (1) (e) ought not to be taken into account in fixing rent under Section 16(3) and that the rent of the rooms in the occupation of Shaikh Jumrati should be fixed at Rs. 102.3 nP. per month. The rent so fixed is reasonable having regard to the situation, locality, condition and amenities of those rooms and the prevailing rent of comparable units in the locality.

(2.) The tenant Shaikh Jumrati has moved this Court in revision against the order of the Appellate Tribunal and has obtained a rule calling upon the learned opposite party to show cause why this order should not be set aside. The upgraded sub-tenants are not parties to this revision case. The case has been referred to this Bench for disposal. The proper basis of fixation of the rent payable by the tenant is in issue in this court.

(3.) The relevant words of Section 16(3) are as follows: "* * * The Controller shall, * * by order declare that the tenant's interest in so much of the premises as has been sub-let shall cease and the sub-tenant shall become a tenant directly under the landlord from the date of the order. The Controller shall also fix the rents payable by the tenant and such sub-tenant to the landlord from the date of the order. Rents so fixed shall be deemed to be fair rents for purposes of this Act.