JAMINIKANTO HARENDRALAL SAHA Vs. BONOMALI DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Bonomali De had let out an open piece of land to one Surendra Kumar Bagehi, who was a monthly tenant in respect thereto. Surendra Kumar Bagchi built a bustee on the said land and sublet a portion of the bustee, that is to say, some huts to the appellant before us Messrs. Jaminikanto Harendra Lal. Saha, who wore also monthly tenants in respect of the huts so let out to them. Bonomali De served a notice to quit on his tenant Surendra Kumar Bagchi and thereafter instituted a suit for ejectment against him. During the pendency of the suit Surendra Kumar Bagchi died and his widow Profulla Nalini Debi was substituted in his place. The suit for ejectment was decreed on 9 January 1942, before the Calcutta House Rent Control Order had been promulgated, The Calcutta House Rent Control Order was promulgated in 1943 and came into force on 26 June 1943. On the application for execution made by Bonomali De an order directing delivery of possession in terms of Order 21, It 35 (1), Civil P.C., was made on 17 May 1946. On 20 June 1946, Messrs. Jaminikanto Harendralal Saba, the sub-tenants, made this application under Section 17, Civil P.C., objecting to the delivery of vacant possession to the decree-holder Bonomali De. Two points were raised before our learned brother Latifur Rahman J.: (i) whether the applicant had locus standi to apply under Section 47, Civil P.C., and (2) whether they could resist the execution of the decree, in the manner ordered. Our learned brother Latifur Rahman J. decided both these points against the applicants. He held that they wore not the representatives of the judgment-debtor, Profulla Nalini Debi, and that they having derived title from Surendra Kumar Bagchi, the tenant, cannot claim any protection from eviction. The application of Messrs Jamini-kanto Harendralal Saha was accordingly dismissed, by the order passed by our learned brother Latifur Rahman J. on 11 July 1946. Against this order Messrs, Jaminikanto Harendralal Saha have preferred this appeal before us.

(2.) We cannot agree with our learned brother Latifur Rahman J. on the first point, The decree for ejectment was passed against the tenant Profulla Nalini Debi. Any sub-tenant would be bound by that decree and so that decree directing delivery of possession to the landlord Bonomali De binds the sub tenants Messrs. Jaminikanto Harendralal Saha. They are persons who have derived their interests from the tenant Surendra Kumar Bagchi. They are accordingly the representatives of the judgment-debtor in view of what has been laid down by the Pull Bench in Ishan Chunder Sirkar V/s. Beni Madhub (1900) 24 Cal. 62 (F.B.).

(3.) The second point is the real point for consideration before us. We have to decide the point before us in the light of the provisions of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946 (Bengal Ordinance No. 5 of 1946) in view of the provisions of Section 26 of that Ordinance. The relevant provisions of that Ordinance are Secs.17 and 12. these sections correspond respectively to Secs.11 and 9 of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order, 1943, except in one respect, namely, that there is a new proviso (proviso (b)) to Section 12 of the Ordinance which is not to be found in the proviso to Section 9 of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order, 1943. That proviso deals with the case where the property has been sub-let. In all other respects the relevant provisions of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, are similar. It would, therefore, make no difference if we make reference to the Calcutta House Rent Control Order of 1943 instead of the provisions contained in the Calcutta Rent Ordinance of 1946.