JITENDRA NATH JOARDAR Vs. MAKHAN LAL CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Rules have been obtained by the landlord against an appellate order fixing the standard rents of two tenancies both of which are in respect of portions of premises No. 11011, Amherst Street, Calcutta. In Civil Revision Case No. 1881 of 1955 the tenant is Makhan Lal Chowdhury, who occupies the one-half of the front portion of the third floor. The contractual rent of Makhan Lal Chowdhury was Rs. 90/-The name of the tenant in Civil Revision Case No. 1882 of 1955 is Jnan Saran Guha, who is a tenant in respect of the back side portion of the first floor of the same premises, namely premises No. 110/1,. Amherst Street. The contractual rent of Jnan Saran Guha's tenancy was Rs. 105]-. Both the tenants filed applications for fixing the standard rent of the tenancies held by them under the petitioner before me, who is a tenant of the first decree under the owner S.K. Mittra & Ors. The application filed by Makhan Lal Chowdhury gave rise to case No. 1726A of 1952 and the application filed by Jnan Saran Guha gave rise to Case No. 1727A of, 1952. In Makhan Lal Chowdhury's case the Rent Controller reduced the rent to Rs. 51-8-3 ps. from Rs. 90/-. In Jnan Saran Guha's case the contractual rent of Rs. 105/- was reduced by the Rent Controller to Rs. 57-2-0. Against the decisions of the Rent Controller both the landlord and the tenants filed appeals. The appeals filed by the landlord were dismissed but the appeals filed by the tenants were allowed in part and the rent of Makhan Lal Chowdhury's tenancy was further reduced to Rs. 39-6-3 ps. and the standard rent of Jnan Saran Guha's tenancy was further reduced to Rs. 42-13-7 ps. It is against the judgments of the appellate Court in these two cases that the landlord has filed the present applications. Leaving aside all details which are not necessary for the present purpose I may state that the rents of both these tenancies were standardised by the courts below on the basis of the rent paid by one Probodh Chandra Ghosh in respect of a flat on the road side portion of the first floor of premises No. 110[1, Amherst Street on the 1st December, 1941. It is admitted in these cases that the rents of the two tenancies are to be standardised, under section 9(1) (e) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and so the court has to determine the rent which would be reasonably payable by a tenant if the premises were let out on the prescribed date. Probodh Chandra Ghosh stated in his evidence that he was a tenant in respect of the road side flat in the first floor of premises No. 110/1, Amherst Street between 1940 and 1943 at a rental of Rs. 45/-, per month and that at the inception of the tenancy the rent was Rs. 45/- but it was subsequently reduced to Rs. 30/- during the war time exodus and he adds that the rent payable in respect of the said premises in December, 1941 was Rs. 45/- per month. On behalf of the landlord it was contended that this gentleman, Probodh Chandra Ghosh, was not a tenant under the owner, S.K. Mittra & ors. in respect of the entire flat but that he was merely a sub-tenant under one K.P. Biswas for only one room and that this K. P. Biswas was a tenant in respect of the entire road side flat on the first floor of premises No. 110/1, Amherst Street at a rental of Rs. 177/- per month. This suggestion was put to Probodh Chandra Ghosh in cross-examination and he emphatically denied it. On the side of the landlord, however, certain counter-foils of rent receipts were produced to show that Kalipada Biswas was a tenant of the first flat of the first floor of premises No. 110[1, Amherst Street at a rent of Rs. 177/-(see Exts. B and C). The genuineness of these counter-foils as well as the rent receipts granted by the owner to Kalipada Biswas was challenged on behalf of the tenant. The courts below have come to the conclusion that the rent receipts Ext. A to A(3), which were produced by the landlord, were not genuine but there is no finding, as far as I have been able to see, with respect to the genuineness of the counter-foils. Be that as it may, both the courts accepted the testimony of Probodh Chandra Ghosh upon the view that it is corroborated by a document, Ext. 2, which is described as an "Inspection Book of Lands and Buildings" maintained by the Corporation of Calcutta. A copy of this document, certified by one Girindra Kumar Kar, Clerk, Assessment Department, Calcutta Corporation, was produced at the trial and marked as Ext. 2.

(2.) The document contains the following entries:

(3.) This document was produced by P. W. No. 2, Subodh Ranjan Mukherjee who says that the inspection was made on October 5, 1941 and that one Profulla Chandra Mukherjee inspected the premises and that he is still in service. Apart from anything else it seems to me that this document presents a nice problem in cross word puzzle and the writer is perhaps the only person who is able to solve it and since he has not been examined it is impossible to attribute any rational meaning to it. It is idle to contend that a court of law possesses the esoteric power of reading any sensible meaning into a meaningless jargon. Without attempting to construe a document like this I may say that this document instead of corroborating the testimony of Probodh Chandra Ghosh contradicts it. It shows that the rent paid by Probodh Chandra Ghosh was Rs. 36/- whereas Probodh Chandra Ghosh in his evidence states that the rent was Rs. 45/-. Again it shows that Kalipada Biswas was a tenant in respect of a portion of the first floor whereas according to the case of the tenants Kalipada Biswas was not a tenant on the first floor. Again it shows that the rent paid by Kalipada Biswas was Rs, 20/- whereas the counter-foils of rent receipts, Exts. B and C, to which I have referred, show that the rent paid by Kalipada Biswas was Rs. 177/- per month But apart) from all these Mr. Mukherjee. appearing in support of the petitioner, has contended that a certified copy of a document like this is not admissible in evidence. Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the opposite party, has contended that it is admissible under section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 35 provides that "any entry in any public or. other official book, register or record stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which the book, register or record is kept is itself a relevant fact." I have, therefore, to see whether the document in question which is described as an "Inspection Book of Lands and Buildings" is a public document or an official book, register or record. Mr. Chatterjee relies upon the provisions of section 136(3) of the Calcutta Municipal Act which authorises the Executive Officer or any person authorised by him in this behalf to inspect, survey and measure the land or building. According to Mr. Chatterjee the authority conferred upon the Executive Officer by this section carries with it the authority to make an entry in a book maintained for the purpose. I am unable to accept this argument. The authority is limited to inspection, survey and measurement and does not extend to making any entry in a book described as "Inspection Book of Lands and Buildings," A comparison with the language of section 137 and section 143 of the Calcutta Municipal Act will make this point clear. Under section 137 the Executive Officer is authorised to cause the respective valuations of the lands and buildings to be entered in a list and give public notice of the place where such list may be inspected. Section 143 requires that the annual valuation fixed under Chapter X shall be entered in one or more books to be kept for the purpose and the particulars which are repaired to be entered in that book have been specified in items (a) to (g) of that section. There is nothing in section 136 which; authorises or requires the Executive Officer or the person acting under his authority to make entries of the measurements in a book described as the "Inspection Book of Lands and Buildings." If the making of the entry is neither authorised nor required by the statute I cannot say that the Assessment Inspector made the entries in the present case in discharge of his official duty or in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of this country.