DR. BHUPENDRA KISHORE NANDI Vs. AMAR NATH DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India made by the tenant petitioner challenging the order dated 13th Dec., 2000 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court in an appeal arising out of the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 16th March, 2000. At one stage, the application was disposed of on 20th Sept., 2002 where under a Bench of this Court was pleased to pass an affirmative order in favour of the petitioner. However, the landlord opposite party filed an application for recalling the order passed on 20th Sept., 2002. The grievance of the opposite party was that no copy of the revisional application was served to him and ultimately order was recalled. However, I find in the earlier occasion on 3rd May, 2001 a Bench of this Court was pleased to direct the petitioner to serve a copy of the revisional application to the opposite party. Now, further application being CAN No. 9352 of 2003 has been made by the respondent/opposite party to restore the original position prevailing prior to the order passed by a Bench of this Court on 20th Sept., 2002 which has been subsequent recalled.

(2.) Coming back to the original application I find that the scope and ambit of the application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is very much restricted about the investigation of the facts. Upon going through both the orders I find that the Additional Rent Controller refused to pass an order only on the ground that the tenant, in effect, requires determination to the extent of the tenancy and it is mode of user but not the repair and accordingly refused to pass an order. Wherein the First Appellate Court being the last Court of facts and law carefully examined the evidence of both the parties and prima facie found the extent of tenancy and allowed the repair work to be carried out at the cost of the tenant without prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties. Therefore, this Court does not really understand as to why such affirmative order passed in favour of the tenant will be allowed to challenge in this High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the tenancy of the premises was given for residential purpose. The rent receipts were granted for two rooms. Repair work in respect of the bath and privy was allowed but kitchen was not allowed. The Court, at the time of hearing on 20th Sept., 2002, held that kitchen is certainly an integral part of the tenancy for residential purpose. Therefore, the order of the First Appellate Court required interference and be modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be at liberty to repair the G.I. pipes of the kitchen at his own cost without prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties.