PARBATI PROSANNA GHOSH Vs. RENT CONTROLLER OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN a sub-tenant, upgraded as a direct tenant under section 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, compel the landlord to effect repairs, under the provisions of section 34 of the Act, to the premises in his occupation? That is the question which calls for my decision in this Rule. Sub-section (3) of section 16 and the material portions of section 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, are set out below:-Section 16 (3 ).

(2.) THE circumstances under which the application for repairs came to be made are as hereinafter stated. By partition with his co-sharers, the petitioner became the sole owner of premises No. 10/l, Rainey Park, also known as 62]4, Ballygunge Circular Road, in the town of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the premises), From prior to the partition, one Beharilal Khandelwal was a tenant under the petitioner and his co-sharers in the premises. The said Beharilal Khandelwal, without the knowledge and consent of his landlords, sublet the premises to C. S. Mehta, respondent No 2. After the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') came into operation, the said respondent No. 2 made an application, under section 16 (3) of the Act, asking for a declaration that the interest of the said Beharilal Khandelwal in the premises shall cease and that the applicant (respondent No. 2 herein), shall become a tenant directly under the landlords. The said application was allowed by the Rent Controller, on December 18, 1958. This is how the respondent No. 2 became a direct tenant under the landlords.

(3.) AFTER partition, in the year 1960, the petitioner became liable to remove himself from his old joint family dwelling house at No. 75b, Beadon Street, Calcutta, within a given time. He, therefore, asked the respondent No. 2 to quit and vacate the premises, so that he might occupy the same for his own residence. The respondent No. 2 put off the request on diverse pretexts. At last, the petitioner caused a notice to be served on the respondent No. 2, and, on November 18, 1960, instituted a suit for his eviction, being Title Suit No. 88 of 1960, of the Court of a Subordinate Judge at Alipore. On the very next day, the petitioner was served with a notice of an application made by respondent No. 2, before the respondent Rent Controller, Calcutta, under section 34 of the said Act, for an order directing the petitioner to make eleven items of repair to the said premises. Apart from the objection that the application was not maintainable at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was merely a statutory tenant, the petitioner characterised the application as a counter-blast to his claim for possession of the premises.