JETMULL BHOJRAJ Vs. MOHAN LAL SUKHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule has been obtained by a sub-tenant against the Order of the Additional Rent Controller of Calcutta, dated the 12th February, 1957 by which he has refused to modify an earlier order passed by him on the 24th January, 1957. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of this case are undisputed and they may be stated as follows: opposite party No. 2 Hirji Jewraj, is the owner of premises No. 9, Wood Street, opposite party No. 1, Mohon Lal Sukhani was a tenant of the first degree under the owner in respect of the entire first floor and one room on the terrace and a garage of the said premises. The petitioner, Jetmull Bhojraj, was a sub-tenant of the aforesaid flat under opposite party No. 1. Sometime in 1955, the petitioner filed an application for fixing the standard rent of his sub-tenant and under sections 9 and 10 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950, which gave rise to case No. 587a of 1955. In this proceeding, both the tenant of the first degree and the owner were impleaded as parties. After the coming into operation of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the petitioner filed an application under section 16 (3) of that Act for a declaration that he was a direct tenant under the owner. This application gave rise to Case No. 572 A of 1956. Both the cases, that is, Case No. 587 A of 1955 and 572a of 1956 are pending before Mr. L. C. Sen, the Additional Rent Controller of Calcutta. By order dated the 24th January, 1957 in case No. 572a of 1956 he held that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs contemplated by section 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and for the purpose of fixing the fair rent under that section he directed the Inspector to go to the locality and take necessary measurements and also to submit a report regarding the rents of similar premises in the locality. The petitioner then filed an application for a modification of this order because according to him there is no necessity for fixing the fair rent in a separate preceding under section 16 (8) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, inasmuch as the standard rent that Would be fixed in Case No. 587 A of 1955 should be taken to be the fair rent according to the provisions of section 8 (1) (c) of the Act of 1956. This application has been rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller by a order dated the 12th February, 1957 and the petitioner has obtained this Rule against that order.

(2.) MR. Mullick appearing in support of the Rule has contended that the learned Additional Rent Controller is carrying on two parallel proceedings for the fixation of the fair rent of the premises in question, one under sections 9 and 10 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950 in case No. 587a of 1955 and another under section 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956. Mr. Mullick contends that such a procedure is not contemplated by the Act because section 8 (1) (c) provides that when a proceeding for fixation of standard rent of any premises is pending on the date of commencement of the Act of 1956, the standard rent fixed in that proceeding should be taken to be the fair rent under the Act of 1956.

(3.) MR. Ganguli, appearing for the landlord opposite party No. 2 has contended, on the other hand, that case No. 537a of 1955, which was between a sub-tenant and a tenant of the first degree, became infructuous as soon as the interest of the tenant of the first degree ceased to exist by the declaration given by the Rent Controller under the first part of section 16 (3) of the Act of 1956. Under section 16 (3) of the Act of 1956, as a result of the declaration given by the Rent Controller the interest of the tenant of the first degree ceases to exist with effect "from the date of the order. " The interest of opposite party No. 1, therefore, in the present case ceased to exist from the 24th January, 1957, on which date the declaration was made by the learned Additional Rent Controller. Case No. 587a of 1955 cannot, therefore, be held to have become totally infructuous. The standard rent that would be fixed in that proceeding will be effective between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 (the tenant of the first degree) from the date of the commencement of the standard rent to be fixed by the Additional Rent Controller up to the 23rd of January, 1957. Thereafter, the standard rent so fixed in that proceeding shall have no legal effect because the interest of the tenant of the first degree against whom that standard rent would operate would be extinguished as a result of the declaration given by the Additional Rent Controller under section 16 (3 ).