ALLEN BROS AND CO Vs. BANDO AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, Messrs. Allen Brothers and Co. (India), Ltd., obtained a Rule nisi on the 4 January 1921 calling upon the respondents Messrs. Bando and Co., to show cause why an order made by the Controller appointed under the Calcutta Rent Act, 1920, should not be set aside. This Rule was issued both under Section 115 of the Code and under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The applicants are tenants of certain premises in Hare Street and hold under the respondents. Their complaint is that an application made by them to the Controller under Section 15 of the Rent Act, for a certificate certifying the standard rent of the said premises, has been dismissed contrary to the terms of the section, which oblige the Controller to fix the standard rent and to certify the same.

(3.) In my opinion, upon the question of merits, there is no answer to the applicants. The judgment of the Controller is before me. It appears that in Hare Street there is a large building which is numbered 3 4, 5 and 6, and there is some confusion on the part of many people as to which part of the whole building is properly designated by one or other of these numerals. It appears, however, that there is no doubt at all as to the rooms which were let to the applicants. They are occupied by Messrs. Hollinghurst and Co., and the three rooms in question which Messrs. Hollinghurst occupy under the applicants and which the applicants took from Messrs. Bando and Co. are. Easily ascertainable The Rent Controller in the course of his judgment says: "From the above it will be seen that there is no satisfactory evidence upon the record to prove the number of the premises comprising the three rooms let out to the applicants, whether the number of the premises is 4, and 5 or 5 and 6 or 4, 5 and 6, Hare Streets On this very ground the suit fails.?