Amala Bala Debi vs Sarat Chandra Gupta Sarma

P.N. Mookerjee, J.—This Rule raises an important question under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Rule is directed against an order of the learned Rent Controller, staying proceedings for fixation of rent u/s 16(3) after an earlier declaration as between the landlady and sub-tenants as to the latter''s direct tenancy under the former.

The Rule is also directed against an order of the learned Appellate Authority dismissing the Petitioner''s appeal against the learned Rent Controller''s above order as incompetent. So far, however, as this part of the Rule is concerned, it is, plainly, unsustainable as, until the fixation matter is also completed u/s 16(3), there is no order under that section appealable under the law u/s 29 of the Act. Clearly, therefore, the learned Appellate Authority was entirely right in dismissing the Plaintiff''s appeal as incompetent and no legitimate grievance can be made against that order of the learned Appellate Authority. That part of the Rule cannot, therefore, succeed.

I have now to consider the Rule, so far as it is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, staying the proceedings for fixation of rent u/s 16(3) of the Act. The order was passed under the following circumstances:

The disputed premises 6/1 Mukherjee Para Lane was originally held by opposite party No. 1 as a direct tenant under the Petitioner landlady at the contractual rent of Rs. 70 per month. The opposite party No. 1, however, let out several portions of this tenanted premises to the three other opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as sub-tenants under him, the total rental payable by these sub-tenants being the sum of Rs. 65 per month. There was also a proceeding, taken, at the instance of the opposite party No. 1, for fixation of the standard rent of the disputed premises, held by him, as aforesaid, as tenant under the Petitioner under the earlier Rent Control Act of 1950. In that proceeding, the learned Rent Controller fixed the standard rent of the disputed premises 6/1 Mukherjee Para Lane, payable by opposite party No. 1 as tenant, to the Petitioner, as landlady, at Rs. 41-7-9 pies per month with effect from April 1, 1956. On appeal, that decision was affirmed, but against this appellate decision, a Revision Case (C.R. 3922 of 1958) is still pending in this Court. In the meantime, the landlady Petitioner applied before the Rent Controller for an order u/s 16(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for a declaration that the three'' opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who were sub-tenants of different portions of the disputed premises under the tenant opposite party No. 1, had become, under the said section, direct tenants under her (the landlady Petitioner), the opposite party No. 1 remaining tenant only in respect of the remaining portion of the said original premises No. 6/1, Mukherjee Para Lane and, in her application, there also the necessary prayer under the said section for fixation of rents of the different portions occupied by the different opposite parties as tenants under her, as aforesaid. By an order, dated August 1, 1957, the learned Rent Controller made the necessary declaration that the opposite parties Nos. 2. 3 and 4 had become direct tenants under the Petitioner in respect of the different portions, occupied by them as sub-tenants as aforesaid under opposite party No. 1, and that the opposite party No. 1 was a tenant only in respect of the remaining portion of the aforesaid premises. There was also, in accordance with with the provisions of the said section further action taken for purposes of fixation of rent under the latter part of the said section. At the time of writing out the judgment, however, the successor learned Rent Controller felt some difficulty in disposing of those fixation matters in view of the pendency of the previous proceeding for standardisation of rent under the earlier Rent Control Act, 1950, in this Court, in C.R. 3922 of 1958, hereinbefore mentioned. He accordingly stayed the proceedings so far as fixation of rents is concerned, until the disposal of the above Rule by this Court. It is against this order that the present Rule was obtained by the Petitioner landlady.

In my opinion, this Rule ought to succeed. The learned Rent Controller, apparently, had in mind Section 8(1)(c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, when ordering the stay, as aforesaid and he probably felt difficulty that, if he now fixed rent u/s 16(3) on the materials before him he may not be acting in conformity with that Section 8(1)(c) and further, there may be conflict in standard rents of the same premises, if, in the earlier proceeding pending as aforesaid, the standardised rent happened to be some other figure. It is clear, however, that the premises, of which the learned Rent Controller had to fix rent u/s 16(3) of the Act were not the same premises as were or was the subject matter of the above earlier rent fixation proceeding under the Act of 1950. So far as that proceeding is concerned, the rent was sought to be standardised of the entire premises No. 6/1, Mukherjee Para Lane, taken as a single premises occupied by opposite party No. 1 as the sole tenant under the Petitioner landlady. So far as the Section 16(3) proceeding is concerned, immediately on the declaration of the sub-tenants as tenants under the landlady Petitioner, which has already been made in this proceeding, there sprung up in place of the single premises No. 6/1, Mukherjee Para Lane, four separate premises comprising the different portions thereof under and in view of the definition of premises, as contained in the said 1956 Act, [vide Section 2(f)]. The four opposite parties are now the four tenants in respect of the different or respective, specific portions of premises No. 6/1, Mukherjee Para Lane under the Petitioner landlady and each of these portions must be taken, now to be let or let out separately and held separately under the landlady Petitioner by the particular opposite party in occupation thereof and each of them would form a separate premises under the above Act. The identity of the premises, so far as Rent Control Act is concerned, has therefore, been lost and neither Section 8(1)(c) of the new Act of 1956 nor any consideration thereunder, or relevant thereto, would present any bar or any difficulty in the fixation of the rents of these four new premises u/s 16(3) of the said new Act In the above view, which is substantially supported by the decision of this Court reported in Jetmall Bhojraj v. Mohan lal Sukhani and Anr. (1957) 62 C.W.N. 314, I would make this Rule absolute and discharge the order of stay, made by the learned Rent Controller, and direct him to proceed with the fixation of rents u/s 16(5) of the 1956 Act in accordance with law.

In the peculiar circumstances of this case, I would direct the parties to bear their own costs in this Rule.