HARIPADA BHOWMICK Vs. KRISHNA CHAND ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before us was opposite party No. 1 in a proceeding before the Rent Controller, Calcutta, under sec. 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The initial application on which the said proceeding was started, was filed on August 22, 1958. In that application, the case of the applicant, who is opposite party No. 1. before us, was that the present petitioner, as the benamdar of the present opposite party No. 2, who was the tenant in respect of the disputed premises under the superior landlord, opposite party No. 8, was the said applicant's ostensible landlord and that the said applicant was really a tenant under the present opposite party No. 2, that tenancy having been created under a document dated August 11, 1954, between the present petitioner as benamdar of the said opposite partly No. 2 and the said applicant, the present opposite party No. 1. The applicant's case was that this sub-tenancy under opposite party No. 2 had been created without the consent of the superior landlord, opposite party No. 3. and he (the applicant), having given notice, as required by sec. 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, of his said sub-tenancy to (the said superior landlord, the opposite party No. 3, was, in the circumstances, entitled to a declaration that, on the passing of the said Act he had, under sec. 16 (3) of the same, become a direct tenant under the said superior landlord, opposite party No. 3. To this proceeding, the superior landlord (opposite party No. 3) the tenant under the said superior landlord, namely, the present opposite party No. 2 and also his alleged benamdar, the present petitioner, were made parties.

(2.) THE application was opposed by both the present petitioner and opposite party No. 2 who denied, inter alia, the applicant's material allegations, including his (the applicant's) claim to the sub-tenancy in question and contended that the aforesaid application was, under the circumstances, not maintainable in law.

(3.) A preliminary objection also appears to have been taken to the said application on the ground that sec. 16 (3) would apply only to the case of an admitted sub-tenancy and the Rent Controller would have no jurisdiction to go into the question of sub-tenancy where there was a dispute as to the same and the matter could then be gone into only by the appropriate Civil Court. On this question, the learned Controller found in favour of the applicant, but, at the same time, he held that, so far as the question of benami was concerned, on which the applicant's application, as originally filed as aforesaid, depended, it could not be raised or gone into at the instance of the said applicant as he would be estopped from raising the said question by reason of sec. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.