ISHAN CHANDRA SARKAR Vs. MONMOTHA NATH DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling on the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal and the opposite party to show cause why the order of the learned President, dated the 26 April 1922, should not be set aside, or such other and further order made as to this Court may seem fit.

(2.) The facts, which have given rise to this application shortly stated, are as follows: The petitioner before us is a tenant in premises 64 and 64-1 of Garpar Road within the limits of Calcutta as defined in the Calcutta Rent Act. He was let into possession of four rooms and a kitchen sometime in November 1918, the rent payable by him being a sum of Rs. 15 per month. It is stated that in February 1920 this rent was enhanced to Rs. 26 a month, and that in February 1922 a further demand for a further enhancement was made by the landlord but it was refused by the petitioner. The result of the refusal on the part of the petitioner to pay farther enhanced rent was that the petitioner's landlord, namely, the opposite party, cut off the connection with the unaltered water tap and forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from a room on the ground floor situated in 64-1 Garpar Road and prevented the petitioner and his family from the use of a filtered water tap in 64 1 Garpar Read and by cutting off one of the filtered water taps. These things happened on the 4 March 1922. The petitioner being thus put to very serious inconvenience and annoyance applied on the n March, 1922 to the Controller of Rents in Calcutta for sanction to prosecute the opposite party under Section 20 of the Calcutta Rent Act. The application for sanction was under the provisions of Section 22 of the Calcutta Rent Act and an enquiry was made by the Controller of Rents in Calcutta. That officer came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioner were substantiated to his satisfaction and he accordingly granted sanction to the petitioner to prosecute the opposite party under Section 20 of the Calcutta Rent Act. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a petition of complaint before the President of the Improvement Tribunal against the opposite party under the provisions of Section 20 of the Calcutta Rent Act. The learned President by his order dated the 26 April 1922 declined to take any action whatsoever on the complaint preferred by the petitioner on the ground that there is no procedure indicated in the Calcutta Rent Act 01 anywhere provided by law for holding a summary enquiry such as is referred to in Section 20 of the Calcutta Rent Act The learned President in the course of his judgment points out that under Section 23 of the Calcutta Rent Act the Local Government was charged with the duty of making rules regulating the procedure to be followed in enquiries by the President of the Tribunal and that in the exercise of the powers vested in them under Section 23 of the Calcutta Rent Aft the Local Government made a rule which rule was to the effect that the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in the matter of enquiries referred to in the Act should follow the Civil P. C. as nearly as may be. The validity of this rule was discussed by this Court in the case of Gobordhone Das V/s. Doolichand 61 Ind. Cas. 210 : 25 C.W.N. 661 : 33 C.L.J. 551 : 22 Cr.L.J 354 : 48 C. 955, and it was ruled by this Court that the rule referred to above being Rule 4 made by he Local Government under the provisions of Section 23 of the Calcutta Rent Act was ultra vires. It appears that after the that of this decision by this Court the Local Government has amended the previous rule by adding to it a proviso to the effect that in making a summary enquiry under sections 19 and 20 of the Act the President of the Tribunal shall follow as nearly as may be the procedure for conducting enquiry prescribed by the Criminal P. C.. The learned President for the reasons given by him is, however, of opinion that the amendment made in the previous rules by the Local Government does not meet the difficulties to which attention had been previously called. In particular the learned President refers to the question as to whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Criminal P. C. read with Section 29 of that Code, provision has been made by the Local Government in the rules which they have made for regulating the procedure to be followed in the summary enquiry under Section 20 of the Calcutta Rent Act.

(3.) We have examined the provisions of Section 20 of the Calcutta Rent Act as also the e provisions of sections 5(2) and 29 of the Criminal P. C. as also the sections in Chapter XXII of the said Code, and's for the reasons mentioned below we are of 1 opinion that the President of the Tribunal is competent to hold summary enquiry referred to in Section 20 of the Calcutta Rent Act under the provisions of Chapter XXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 5 of the Criminal P. C. runs as follows: "(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter Contained (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, namely, the provisions hereinafter contained as mentioned in Section 5(1), but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner, or place of investigating, enquiry into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 29(1) states, subject to the provisions of Section 447 any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Courts."