NARENRDA LAL DUTTA BANIK Vs. SAROJENDRA NATH GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant filed an application under Section 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for fixation of fair rent of the disputed premises. The landlord opposite party filed an objection. The learned Rent Controller was of opinion that since the applicant petitioner's tenancy had already been determined and a regular suit for ejectment filed, the application for fixation of rent was not tenable in law. An appeal was preferred without any success. Hence this revisional application.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the tenant-petitioner that, the case of Dean v. Bruce, 1951 AllER 926, at page 928 Lord Denning has taken the view that once a contractual tenancy is at an end, but the tenant contained in possession on the footing of rent Acts, the Rent of the house is regulated by the Act and the question of estoppel is out the way. Reference has been made to the case of Karnani Industrial Bank v. Satyaniranjan, 1928 55 IndApp 344 at page 350 to show that under the Calcutta Rent Act, 1920, the Controller has jurisdiction to fix standard rent of the premises though on the date of the application the tenancy had been determined. In order to give any working effect to the Act, the words landlord and tenant must include ex-landlord and ex-tenant. In the case of Moni Jain v. Raja Ram, 1980 AIR(SC) 299 at page 300 it has been stated that in view of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the word tenant includes the quondam tenant continuing in possession. An ex-tenant is clothed with all the rights of a regular tenant. Consequently he can apply for fixation of rent. The contrary view taken by learned Single Judge in the case of Sudhir v. Ashutosh,1980 1 CurLJ 36, which was also referred to by the learned appellate Court, cannot be accepted.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has stated that after service of the notice of ejectment the landlord filed an ejectment suit. The tenant filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Act. On 13.9.1980 that application was disposed of. A revisional application was then preferred and that matter has since been disposed of by the High Court. On 11.3.1978 the tenant filed the present application under Section 8 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Sudhir Kumar v. Ashutosh is correct because of the Supreme Court decisions of Ananda Nivas v. Anandji, 1965 AIR(SC) 414 Calcutta Credit Corporation v. Happy Homes, 1968 AIR(SC) 471 and J.C. Chatterjee v. S. Tandon, 1972 AIR(SC) 2526 . The Supreme Court has pointed out that after the tenant's tenancy is determined by a notice to quit, he merely becomes a statutory tenant because the contractual tenancy comes to an end the statutory tenant has no right to ask for fixation of fair rent within the meaning of Section 8 of the Act.