SUKUMAR CHANDRA Vs. JIBAN KUMAR BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application u/s. 115 of the C.P. Code, against an order dated May 4th, 1977 passed by Sri D.K. Bsnerjce, District Judge, Purulia, in Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 1977 of his court by which he dismissed the appeal against an order passed by Rent Controller, on April 1977 in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1976-77. The facts of the case are that :

(2.) The complainant opposite party filed an application under section 31 of the W.B.P.T. Act 1956 for restoration of the latrine against the petitioner in Misc. Case no. 2. of 77. The complainant's case was that the complaint is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of the one shop room and latrine at rental Rs. 45.00 which was payable according to English Calendar month. That complainant and his employee were in possession of the tenancy for more than 15 years and the latrine is a part and pares of the tenancy. The landlord began to harass the complainant in every way and therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia u/s 341 I.P.C. The Petitioner landlord contested the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, that defence was that the latrine was not a part of the tenancy. In the meantime the opposite party filed the rent control case being Misc. Case No. 2 of 77 in the court of the Rent Controller, Purulia in which present petitioner appeared and filed objection. On April 6, 1977 the Rent Controller Purulia, passed an order in rent control misc. Case no. 2 of 1976-77 where by he directed the present petitioner for the restoration of the possession of the latrine to the complainant opposite party without any further delay. At against the order, the present petitioner preferred an appeal to the court of District Judge, Purulia, being Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 77. The ld. District Judge, by his order dated 4.5.77 rejected the appeal and hence, the present petition to this court u/s. 115 of the C.P. Code. It contended that the ld. court acted beyond jurisdiction in holding that the order in question passed by the Rent Controller was an interlocutory order and not a final one and hence no relief is called for.

(3.) The only point for consideration is whether the Ld. District Judge acting as an appellate authority to the order pasted by the Rent Rs.Controller was within the jurisdiction to hold that the order was not final order.