K. SINGH DEO Vs. K. SRIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two cases arising out of two petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the same landlord as petitioner a common question of law has arisen for decision. The question is : whether or not in cases of entertaining complaints of interference with supply of water in a tenanted premises contemplated under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, (hereinafter to be referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act) the Rent Controller is obliged to strictly follow the procedure laid down in sections 200 to 204 of the Cr. P. C. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity). The question has arisen in the fact's and circumstances stated below:-

(2.) Messrs Jenson and Nicholson India Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Companies Act hired two flats in premises No. 3E, Camac Street under the petitioner landlord for occupation by two of its Officers. The detailed description of the flats and the officers who were allowed to occupy the flats on behalf of the company have been given in the two petitions. It was alleged that the landlord had interfered with supply of water to the flats. Two applications under section 31 of the Act were accordingly filed. The first one was filed on 20.5.77 giving rise to Rent Control Case No. 252 of 1977 before the Rent Controller, Calcutta and the second was filed on 31.5.77 giving rise to R. C. Case No. 269 of 1977. At the time of entertainment of The application in the first mentioned case the officer in occupation of the flat made a statement on solemn affirmation and the Rent Controller by his order dated 20.5.77 ordered issue of summons. Similarly in the second case the Officer in occupation of the flat named in the petition made a statement on solemn affirmation and the learned Rent Controller made a similar order for issue of summons on 2.6.77, Notice of the cases having been resved on the landlord he took objection to the proceedings on the ground that the officers legally competent to represent the company did not sign and verify the petitions, and did not execute Vakalatnama the officers making statements on solemn oath were incompetent to depose in support of the complaints made and the Rent Controller did not follow strictly the procedure prescribed by Sections 200 to 204 of the Crimial P.C. and that subsequent to entertainment of the petitions Rent Controller wrongly took into consideration Inspector's report contrary to Sec. 202 Cr.. P. C: The Rent Controller by his similar orders passed on 10.4.80 overruled the objections raised. In the aforesaid premises the -landlord has come up before this Court calling in question the correctness of the learned Rent Controller's orders and also praying for quashing the proceedings pending before him.

(3.) Mr. Sumit Moitra, the learned Advocate for the landlord petitioner draws my attention to the case of Sethia Property reported in A.I.R. 1961 Cal. 199 and contends that it was clearly held that rules under the Act in so far as they required inquiries into offences under the Act by the Rent Controller according to Code of Civil Procedure were ultra vires. Thereafter Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Act has been amended. The relevant portion of Rule 10 reads as follows:-