O C GANGULY Vs. KAMALPAT SING DUGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant who, on being sued for ejectment from the premises where he was living, pleaded the Calcutta House Rent Control Order in bar. The Courts below have refused this plea on two grounds : (1) that he is not a tenant at all but a mere licensee and (2) that assuming he is a tenant, he is a defaulter and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order. A decree for ejectment has accordingly been passed and the defendant has appealed.

(2.) In opening the appeal, Mr. Gupta at first stated that in view of the second finding which was a finding of fact, his client could not claim, the protection of the House Rent Control Order and could not expect a reversal of the decree for ejectment. He would, therefore, confine himself to the first finding and if he succeeded in getting it reversed and establishing a tenancy, that might be useful to his client in pursuing his remedy under the Calcutta House Rent Control Order in some other form, in view of certain recent amendments. When, however, Mr. Gupta's attention was drawn to para. 9-A of the Order, he took a further point to the effect that the decree in the present case was bad, inasmuch as the permission of the Rent Controller had not been obtained.

(3.) The material facts are the following : It appears that the defendant's house at 2, Ashutosh Mukherji Road was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act and the requisitioning officer suggested that he might be provided with accommodation in the ground floor of the plaintiff's house at 84-B, Shambhunath Pandit Street, which was close by. The plaintiff agreed or was made to agree and an arrangement was concluded between the parties under which the defendant was to be accommodated in the plaintiff's house for a specified period of roughly six months. It must be added that the plaintiff himself is not the owner of the house, but only a tenant.