GAJANANDA CHOUDHURY Vs. BHOLANATH BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of Petitioner Gajendra Choudhury, a tenant under Opposite Party, in respect of a portion of premises No. 148, Harrison Road, Calcutta.

(2.) In order to appreciate the exact points in controversy it would be necessary to set out the following., admitted facts. The Petitioner had been holding the premises mentioned above under the opposite party from before the 1st Dec., 1941, at a monthly rent of Rs. 120. The rent was reduced to Rs. 65 per month at the time of the general exodus of people from Calcutta. Thereafter on or about the 10th April, 1944, the landlord applied for fixation of rent at Rs. 120 per month with effect from the 1st April, 1944. This application was apparently made under paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order, 1943. Mr. Amin Ahmad who was Rent Controller at the time fixed the rent at Rs. 80 per month by consent of parties on the 18th May, 1944. The Petitioner's case is that notwithstanding the above fixation of rent the landlord began to realise rent at Rs. 140 per month with effect from April, 1947, and so he applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of standard rent on the basis of the rent already fixed by Mr. Amin Ahmad. The landlord also filed a counter-application alleging that the rent fixed by Mr. Amin Ahmad was too low and contending that Rs. 250 per month was the fair and reasonable rent in Dec., 1941. Both the applications were heard together, and the Additional Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 90 per month by an order, dated the 20th March, 1950. He treated the rent fixed by Mr. Amin Ahmad as the basic rent for the purpose of determining the standard rent. An appeal was preferred before the Chief Judge against the above order which was dismissed, and the landlord came up to High Court in revision. The High Court thereupon set aside the order of the Chief Judge and directed a re-hearing of the appeal which was accordingly heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, who fixed the standard rent at Rs. 145-3 per month. The tenant petitioner has come up to this Court in revision alleging that the Chief Judge committed an error in law by not accepting the rent fixed by Mr. Amin Ahmad, as the basic rent within the meaning of Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule "A" of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950.

(3.) It is not disputed that although the proceedings were instituted when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1948 was in operation, the question of fixation of the standard rent would be governed by sub-section (3) of section 17 of the Rent Control Act of 1950. That sub-section runs in the following terms :