PARESH NATH CLOTH STORES Vs. NITYANANDA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order and decision of the Controller under section 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The disputed premises is a defined space for a wall-almirah on the ground floor of the building at No. 220, Upper Circular Road, Calcutta. It is common case before us that Biswanath Pal is the owner of the premises, Satinath Kundu is the tenant of the first degree, Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. is the tenant of the second degree, Paresh Nath Cloth Stores is the tenant of the third degree and Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey are the joint tenants of the fourth degree. All these tenancies were created before the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The tenants of the fourth degree, Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey, gave a notice to the owner landlord Biswanath Pal purporting to be a notice under sec. 16 (2) of the Act of the subletting in their favour. Within two months of the receipt of this notice by Biswanath Pal, Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey commenced proceedings before the Controller under sec. 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, praying for an order that they be declared direct tenants under Biswanath Pal and for a further order declaring that the tenancies of Satinath Kundu, Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. and Paresh Nath Cloth Stores have ceased. To this proceeding they impleaded and joined as parties Biswanath Pal, Satinath Kundu and Paresh Nath Cloth Stores. Subsequently they amended the petition by adding Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. as party. Before the Controller an employee of Biswanath was called and he on behalf of Biswanath denied that Biswanath ever gave consent to sublet. On July 8, 1957 the Controller decided that Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey were entitled to reliefs prayed for and as provided in sec. 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 but as the petitioners had prayed for fixation of fair rent also, he directed the Inspector to go to the locality and take necessary measurements of the disputed premises and of other similar premises and to submit a report by the 4th of September 1957. Aggrieved by this decision, Paresh Nath Cloth Stores, instead of filing an appeal under sec. 29 of the Act, have moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) MR. Banerjee on behalf of Paresh Nath Cloth Stores contends (a) that sub-sec. (3) of sec. 16 does not entitle Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey to be declared direct tenants under the owner Biswanath Pal by elimination of the interests of all the intermediate tenants; (b) that in relation to the sub-tenants Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey, the tenant who sublet to them and whose interest could be eliminated on their application is Paresh Nath Cloth Stores; (c) that the landlord of the tenant who sublet is Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. to whom only those sub-tenants could give notice of the sub-letting under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 16 and whose direct tenant, they could be declared in properly constituted proceedings; (d) and that they were not entitled to the elimination of the interest of Paresh Nath Cloth Stores as they have not asked for such an order and as the requisite notice bad not been given to Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. and also inasmuch as Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. did not deny that they gave oral consent to the sub-letting.

(3.) MR. Roy Chowdhury on behalf of Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey disputes these contentions. Mr. Roy Chowdhury contends that the expression "landlord" in sec. 16 means the owner, that the expression "tenant" means every intermediate tenant and that the expression "every sub-tenant" means the last inferior tenant in occupation of the premises and that his clients were therefore entitled to give the notice of the sub-letting to Biswanath and to ask for an order declaring them to be direct tenants under Biswanath upon eliminating the interests of all the intermediate tenants.