BIJOY SINGH NAHATA Vs. MOHANLAL, CHAUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule raises an important and interesting question of first impression. That question relates to the interpretation of section 14(4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. There is doubtless some ambiguity in the relevant statutory language which has given rise to controversies and unnecessary complexities. The relevant facts are not in dispute and they stand as follows:--

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant under the opposite party in respect of two shop rooms in premises No. 196, Cross Street, Calcutta. On 1st Dec., 1941, the rental of the said tenancy was Rs. 62-10-0 per month. In Aug., 1946, the landlord applied for fixation of standard rent under the" Rent Control Act of 1948 which was then in force and on 14th March, 1950, the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 171-4-0 per month with effect from 1st Sept., 1949. From the said order there were appeals preferred by both the parties. Those appeals, however, were dismissed on 5th Oct., 1950, giving liberty to the parties to apply for refixation of standard rent under the Rent Control Act of 1950 which had come into force in the meantime. The application for refixation of the standard rent was filed by the tenant on 30th October, 1950, and this was disposed of by the Rent Controller on 28th Dec., 1950, standardising the rent at Rs. 68-14-0 per month with effect from 1st April, 1950. The landlord's appeal against this decision was dismissed by the learned Fourth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, on 23rd June, 1951, subject to a slight modification as to the date from which the new standard rent would take effect, that date being altered to and specified by the learned Judge as 1st Nov., 1950. Aggrieved by this appellate order both parties moved this Court in revision when, on 5th Sept., 1952, the said order and the entire rent refixation proceedings as also the order, dated the 5th Oct., 1950, on which the same were based, were all set aside and the original appeals before the Court of Small Causes, arising out of the standardisation proceedings under the 1948 Act, were directed to be re-heard according to law by the learned Chief Judge personally in the light of the provisions of section 17(2) of the 1950 Act. Thereafter the matter has moved from Court to Court but the appeals have not yet been finally disposed of.

(3.) In the meantime, on or about 23rd Dec., 1952, the landlord-opposite party had instituted against the tenant-petitioner Ejectment Suit No., 3230 of 1950 in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, upon the allegation inter alia that the said tenant was not entitled to the benefit of the rent control law because of default in the payment of rent. The tenant appeared, filed written statement and raised a contest. On 14th Feb., 1953, the landlord applied for an appropriate order under section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1950. On 20th June, 1953, the application was allowed by the learned trial Judge by his order of that date in which he observed inter alia as follows:--