Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short question which these six appeals raise relates to the construction of section 30(c) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 (W. B. Act No. II of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act ). This question arises in this way. The respondent Sanat Kumar Ganguli is the owner of a plot of land being premises No. 12, Haldar Lane, in Central Calcutta. This plot had been let out in several lots to the predecessors-in-title of the six appellants. On July 24, 1954, the respondent filed six suits Nos. 2245 to 224 of 1954 against the six appellants respectively on the original side of the Calcutta High Court, claiming decrees for ejectment against them and asking for arrears of ground rent and Municipal taxes.

2. The appellants contested the respondent s claim on the ground that the lands in suits had been taken by their predecessor-in-title from the owner as Thika tenants in or about the year 1900, and they alleged that they were in occupation of the said plots after having built substantial structures on them. The appellants further claimed that they had themselves let out portions of such structures to their own tenants. On these allegations, a preliminary objection to the competence of the suits was raised by the appellants on the ground that under S. 5 of the Act, a claim for ejectment of Thika tenants can be entertained only by the Controller, and so, the learned Judge on the original side of the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

3. The respondent admitted that the appellants were thika tenants and did not dispute that normally, a claim for ejecting such thika tenants could be tried only by the Controller; but he urged that the present suits fell within the scope of S. 30(c) of the Act and in consequence, the provisions of S. 5 and indeed, all other relevant provisions of the Act did not apply to them. That is how the respondent sought to meet the preliminary objection raised by the appellants.

4. In appreciating the nature of the controversy thus raised by the pleadings, it is necessary to mention some more facts. On February 9, 1940 a notice was issued by the Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust under S. 43 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (Bengal Act V of 1911) as amended upto 1931. This Act will hereafter be called the Improvement Act . This notice shows that a scheme bearing No. 53 had been framed for the purpose of improvement of Calcutta by a street scheme in Ward No. 10 of the Calcutta Municipality for an area the boundaries whereof were described in the said notice. This notice gave the particulars of the scheme and was accompanied by a map of the area comprised in the scheme. It also contained the statement of the land which it was proposed to acquire as well as land on which betterment fee was proposed to be levied. These plans were open for inspection at the office of the Trust at No. 5, Clive Street, Calcutta. Along with this notice, another notice was published which gave a list of properties proposed to be acquired under the scheme and contained a statement of the land in regard to which betterment fees were proposed to be levied. Premises No. 12, Haldar Lane, were included in the latter category of lands,

5. In July 1952, proceedings were started for settling the betterment fee to be levied in respect of premises No. 12, Haldar Lane, and a letter was addressed by the Chief Valuer of the Calcutta Improvement Trust to the respondent on November 19,1952. This letter shows that the Chief Valuer had not received a reply from the respondent, though his advocate had accepted the assessment of betterment fee of Rs.15,000 in the Land Committee meeting which had been held on August 7, 1952 and confirmed by the Board on August 30, 1952. On November 19, 1952, however, the respondent recorded in writing that he accepted the said assessment.

6. The respondent s case before the learned trial Judge was that since betterment fee had been levied by the Board in respect o