ARUN BROTHERS Vs. SAKTI PRASANNA CHATERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come up before this Special Bench as a result of the difference of opinion expressed by the Bench of S. K. Datta and H. N. Sen, JJ. in the above matter with another Division Bench decision of this Court in Manick Chand Durga Prosad & Bros. v. Bulakidas Baheti, reported in.

(2.) The interesting point on which the above two Division Beaches have expressed their divergent views is whether the Kent Controller has the power to correct a rent control challan by which a tenant deposits rent with the Rent Controller in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. To be more precise, the point involved is whether the rent control challans, with which the rents have been deposited in the wrong name of the landlord Sakti Prosad Chatterjee in the place and stead of Sakti Prosanna Chatterjee, could be corrected by the Rent Controller. The point has to be decided on the basis of the law as stands and as is provided by the said West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. One would be tempted to ask --what, if 'Prosad' is corrected to read 'Prosanna' ? But the question has to be decided on the basis of whether or not the Rent Controller has been vested with the power to do so. What is the nature of the power which is exercised by the Rent Controller in the matter of such corrections ? Is it his administrative function or is it quasi-judicial ? Can he have inherent power to correct the challan ?

(3.) Besides the decision in Manick Chand Durga Prosad v. Buiakidas Baheti (supra) there have been several pronouncements of this Court and the views expressed therein appear to be unanimous on the point that there is no express provision in the said statute, viz. West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 empowering the Rent Controller to correct such challans and, as such, the Kent Controller, Dot being a Court, could not have, in his administrative capacity, exercised such powef. The only view that has been expressed against the preponderance of the authorities, has been expressed by the Bench of S.K. Datta and H.N. Sen, JJ. in the above matter, inter alia, in the following words: "The Division Bench consisting of D.N. Sinha, C. J. and A.K. Mukherjea, J. observed as follows (at p. 107):