DURGABALA BISWAS Vs. NITTANANDA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Rules were issued at the instance of a landlord in connection with two rent fixation cases.

(2.) The landlord holds under another person and he is in reality a tenant of the first degree He holds two premises under his landlord, viz., one shop-room which is the subject matter of Case No. 170/52 and he has three rooms in Case No. 169B|52. He let out the entire premises, that is one shop-room in Case No. 170B|52, and let out only a part, that is one shop-room out of three rooms, in Case No. 169B|52, to his tenant, that is the sub-tenant of the landlord. It must be pointed out that as between him and the landlord the rent has not yet been standardised for either of the premises and it is desirable in a case of this nature that the fixation of rent should be in the presence of the superior landlord if possible, so that there may be no multiplicity of proceedings later on and no injustice. Therefore, when the cases go back to the Rent Controller, he will see to making the superior landlord also a party to the proceedings and having the rent of the tenant of the first degree and the sub-tenant fixed in his presence.

(3.) In the present case, the Rent Controller fixed the rent on wholly inadmissible evidence, namely, the facts mentioned in a judgment not inter parties and what is mentioned in the Assessment Register of the Municipality which is at best hearsay evidence. It has already been pointed out rightly by this Court that these are not properly admissible evidence. On the basis of these materials he fixed first the rent in Case No. 170B/52, whilst on that basis of that rent again he fixed the rent in Case No. 169B/52.