E SCOTT Vs. RESIDENCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas, made under Section 14 (4), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act.

(2.) The suit was in respect of a room in 209, Lower Circular Road in Calcutta. The plaintiff's case was that rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month. The defendant contended that, though that was the rate originally agreed upon the rent payable at the time of the suit as also at the time of the application under Section 14 (4), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act was Rs. 64-13-0, that being, according to her, the standard rent fixed for the premises. The present suit was instituted on 25-9-1953. It appears that on 16-1-1950, the petitioner applied to the Rent Controller for standardisation of rent and that on the 11th of April of that year the rent was standardised at Rs. 55-3-3 pies per month. This, however, was set aside by the appellate Court on 7-9-1950, and the application was remanded to the Rent Controller for re-hearing. After fresh hearing the Rent Controller again fixed the rent at Rs. 55-14-3 pies per month. There was another appeal. This appeal also was allowed, the order of the Rent Controller set aside and the case remanded for rehearing. On 2-12-1953, the case was dismissed for default. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of dismissal. The order of dismissal was set aside and the case was restored by an order of the appellate Court on 27-5-1954. On 31-8-1954, however, this application was again dismissed. On 12-4-1954, one N. N. Das made an application before the Rent Controller claiming to be a sub-tenant under the present petitioner for the same premises, for fixation of standard rent therefor and the Rent Controller fixed on his application. Rs. 64-13 annas to be the standard rent, per month. The main question before us is whether the petitioner's contention that this amount of Rs. 64-13 annas which has been fixed by the Rent Controller on the sum-tenant's application as the standard rent for the premises is the rent that is payable for the premises for the purpose of calculating the arrears payable to the plaintiff under Section 14 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, is correct.

(3.) The contention that the rent fixed as the standard rent on the application of N. N. Das is the rent payable also by the petitioner to her superior landlord, the opposite party, proceeds on the assumption that for one premises there can be only one standard rent which is payable by all different grades of tenants. Where the owner of a house, say A, lets out the entire house at a rent of Rs. 50/- per month to B, B lets out that entire house at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-to C, C lets out the same to D at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- and D to E at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-, there are clearly different rents for the same premises for the different tenancies. It is said, however, that if on the application of any one of them some amount is fixed as the standard rent for the 'premises', that rent will be the standard rent for all these different tenancies. Thus, on the above illustration, if on E's application Rs. 40/- is fixed as the standard rent, Rs. 40/-, it is contended, becomes, in law, the standard rent which is payable not only by E to D, but also by D to C, by C to B and B to A. This contention, to my mind is unsound. When the Statute speaks of standard rent for premises, it has, to my mind, reference to a particular relationship of tenancy. In the above illustration the tenancy of B under A, the tenancy of C under B, the tenancy of D under C and the tenancy of E under D are all different relationships of tenancy. "Premises" has been defined in Section 2 (8) as meaning "any building or part of a building or any hut or part of a hut let separately". That, in my opinion, does not justify the view that as one premises has been let out to all these different persons, a rent having once been fixed for the premises governs all the different tenancies. The different relationships of tenancy are not wiped out by the fact that the same building or part of a building is being let out. The standard rent fixed for a premises clearly means rent fixed for a tenancy of the premises. Therefore, if there are different tenancies for the same premises, as in the illustration above, there may be as many different standard rents as there are tenancies. That the Legislature was fully conscious of this position is clear from the provisions of Rule 4 of Sch. A. This rule is in these words: