RAKHAL CHANDRA SAHA Vs. SUKUMAR DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a certificate for appeal to the supreme Court under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises No. 56, Southern avenue, Calcutta, at a monthly rent of rs. 100/ -. The said premises was purchased by the Opposite Party on the 27th of July, 1957. On the 9th of July 1958 the Opposite Party instituted a suit, being Title Suit No. 577 of 1958 in the fifth Court of the Munsiff at alipore for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of reasonable requirement. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on July 18, 1866 and the said decree was ultimately affirmed by this Court in S. A. No. 1572 of 1967 on March 7, 1969. The Tenant defendant was, however, granted time till the end of March 1970 to vacate the disputed premises. In the mean time the West Bengal premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1970, came into force on the 6th of March, 1970. By the said Amending Act a new Section, namely, section 17e was introduced in the parent Act. The relevant portion of the said section run as follows:

(3.) TAKING advantage of this new provision the tenant petitioner filed an application under section 17e of the act. The said application was allowed by the trial court and the ejectment decree which was obtained by the landlord-opposite party was set aside on july 8, 1970. Against the said order the landlord opposite party came up to this Court in revision and obtained civil Rule No. 2374 of 1970. The said rule came up for final hearing before us on the 29th of March, 1972, and it was made absolute and the order of the trial court was set aside on the ground that, following the Division bench decision reported in (1) Sailendra nath Ghosal v. Sm. Ena Dutta, 75 c. W. N. 331 we had already held in Civil, rule No. 1943, of 1971 (2) Amal chandra Chatterjee v. Promode Kumar banerjee (Since reported in 76 C. W. N 743) that section 17e of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act was ultra vires Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution in so far as it is retrospective in operation. The petitioner has filed the present application for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court against the said Order.