Nil Ratan Banerji vs Sanat Kumar Bhose

This is a revision application by a landlord against the order of the Small Cause Court Judge, dated February 14, 1951, dismissing an appeal preferred by the landlord against the (decision of the Additional Rent Controller, dated July 15, 1950. The facts of the case are a bit complicated, but the point of law that has been canvassed before us is a fairly simple one. It appears that, according to the provisions of the Bengal Rent Control Order of 1943, rent in respect of the disputed premises was fixed by the Rent Controller on December 20, 1945, at Rs. 413. There was an appeal before the Chief Judge, Small Cause Court; by that time the Calcutta Rent Control Ordinance of 1946 had come into operation and on September 15, 1947, the Chief Judge fixed the rent at Rs. 455 u/s 10 of the Ordinance. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Ordinance lays down, however, that in every case in which the Controller fixed under this section the standard rent or increases under this section the rate of rent in respect of any premises, he shall appoint a date from which the standard rent so fixed or the increase so allowed shall be deemed to have effect. In the present case, however, this provision of the Ordinance was entirely lost sight of and the Chief Judge did not appoint a date in terms of Sub-section (4), from which the rent of Rs. 455 fixed by him was to have been paid. We have then to turn to sch. A of West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. The present case is governed by para. 3 of the schedule, as the premises in question are used otherwise than for residential purposes. According to the para. 1(a) of this schedule, basic rent in relation to any premises means where the rent of any of the premises has been fixed by the Calcutta House Rent Control Ordinance of 1946 the rent so fixed.

It is contended on behalf of the landlord Petitioner that, as no date had been fixed by the Chief Judge in his order, dated September 15, 1947, as to the date from which the rent settled by him was to be paid, the order was inoperative, if not void, that Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance of 1946 is an integral and mandatory part of Section 10 and according to that nub-section it was incumbent upon the Controller or for the matter of that upon the Chief Judge to appoint a date from which the rent fixed by him was to have effect and as this mandatory provision was not complied with the order was totally ineffective.

The matter can be looked from two stand-points as Mr. Mitra argues. The first branch of his contention is that if the order of the Chief judge, dated September 15, 1947, be treated as void for non-compliance with the provision of Sub-section (4), the landlord has to fall back upon the order of the Rent Controller, dated December 20, 1945, passed under the Rent Control Order of 1943. According to the Rent Control Order, there was no provision which made it incumbent upon the Controller to fix a date from which the rent settled by him was to have effect. If, in the present case, the landlord has to fall back upon the order of the Rent Controller, dated December 20, 1945, whereby the rent was settled at Rs. 413 the contention of Mr. Mitra is that according to the sch. A of West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, all that the landlord could claim was the basic rent of Rs. 413 with an increase by 15 per cent, according to para. 3(6) of sch. A. The landlord, however, does not base his claim upon this ground. It may be mentioned here, before parting with this line of argument of Mr. Mitra that his contention further is that the order, dated September 15, 1947, by the Chief Judge cannot on a proper construction of Section 10 of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, be said to be void. Sub-section (3) of that section lays down that the Controller may fix the standard rent as according to certain principles mentioned in that Sub-section. Then, Sub-section (4) lays down that, in every case in which the Controller fixes u/s 10 standard rent he shall appoint a date from which the standard rent so fixed shall have effect. The language used in these subsections, viz., Sub-sections (3) and (4) of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, goes to indicate that standard rent is really fixed under Sub-section - (3) and under Sub-section (4) only the date from which the rent so settled will be payable is laid down. These two things, viz., fixation of the standard rent and appointment of a date from which the standard rent so fixed shall be deemed to have effect are severable though they may be covered by the same order. This line of argument appears to us to be cogent and we are not prepared to hold that, simply because the Chief Judge had not fixed a date under Sub-section (4) of the Ordinance, his order fixing the standard rent was void.

The next line of argument of Mr. Mitra is that the order of the Chief Judge, dated September 15, 1947, settling the rent at Rs. 455 was an order fixing the rent within the meaning of para. 1(a) of schedule A of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, even though it was not a complete order and, as three years did not elapse from that date, that is, from September 15, 1947, at the time when the present application was filed, the landlord is not entitled to get anything more than the sum of Rs. 455 as held by the courts below. Reference may, in this connection, be made to para. 3(a) of schedule A of West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. This argument appears to us to be sound and it follows logically from the language used in sch. A of the 1950 Act.

In this view of the matter we are of opinion that the decision of the lower appellate court is correct. The Rule is discharged accordingly. In the circumstances of the case no order is made as to costs.

Guha Roy, J.

I agree.