PRAFULLA CHANDRA MUKHERJEE Vs. AKSHOY KUMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued on an application made at the instance of the landlord under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated April 12, 1957, passed by Shri B. Basak, Second Additional Rent Controller, Calcutta, in case No. 1346A of 195G S.R. The aforesaid case was started by Akshoy Kumar Bose, opposite party No. 1 in this Rule, claiming to be a sub-tenant in respect of premises No. 17, Bindu Palit Lane in the town of Calcutta which had been let out to Paritosh Kumar Dey, opposite party No. 2, at a monthly rent standardised at Rs. 26 per month. One of the terms of the said tenancy which had been in existence sometimes from before December, 1949, when the said standardisation of rent was made, was to the effect that the said tenancy in favour of the said Paritosh Kumar Dey, opposite party No. 2, was prohibited to be sublet by him and upon those terms of the contract the tenancy in respect of the said Paritosh Kumar Hey, the tenant opposite party No. 2, had been subsisting.

(2.) It is stated that even in the face of such restrictive terms of the tenancy providing for positive prohibition against sub-letting the opposite party No. 2 sub-let the tenancy to the opposite party No. 1 sometimes in April, 1955, i.e., before the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, came into existence. The opposite party No. 1, the sub-tenant, made an application under Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and therein prayed for a declaration that the tenancy interest in respect of the premises that had been sub-let ceased and that the applicant-sub-tenant had become a tenant directly under the landlord from the date of the order passed and further prayed for fixation of the rent payable to the landlord from the date of such order. This application by the opposite party No. 1 Akshoy Kumar Bose was the subject-matter of case No. 1346A o.f 1956 S.R. as stated above before the Rent Controller.

(3.) It appears that the Rent Controller took evidence on behalf of the parties and by his order, dated April 12, 1956, did not finally dispose of the said application but made the declaration as prayed for in favour of the opposite party No. 1. Against this order the landlord Petitioner moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and obtained the present Rule.