Judgement

Appeal (No. 13 of 1927) from an order of the High Court (June 19, 1925) reversing orders of the Controller of Rents ; and appeal (No. 87 of 1927) from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (April 27, 1926) varying a decree of the Court in its original jurisdiction.

The appeals, both by the above named appellants, related to the Calcutta Rent Act, 1920, as amended in 1923 and 1924, and raised questions with regard to the jurisdiction of the Controller of Rents thereunder. There was a further question as to the jurisdiction of the President of the Improvement Tribunal in appeal, but that question was concluded in favour of the appellants by the decision of the Board in Keshoram Poddar v. Nundo Lal Mallick. (( 1927) L. R. 54 I.

A. 152.)

The facts and the effect of the decisions in the matters given in India appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1928. April 24; May 8, 10. W. A. Greene K.C. and Dube for the appellants.

De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the respondents.

June 14. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD ATKIN. These two appeals from the High Court at Port William in Bengal raise a question as to the construction of the Calcutta Rent Act, 1920.

On October 7, 1920, the appellants (hereinafter called " the bank ") took a lease from the respondents (hereinafter called " the landlords ") of premises, 3 and 4, Royal Exchange Place, Calcutta, for a term of three years from November 1, 1920, at a rent of Rs.5400 a quarter, payable in advance. The premises at the time appear to have been let in tenements at monthly rents. In the lease there were stringent repairing covenants, under which the bank were to put the premises in substantial repair, expending at least Rs. 10,000, and to keep them in good repair. They were to eject such of the occupiers as they desired at their own risk and expense. There was the usual forfeiture clause, and the bank had an option to renew for a further term of three years. The bank were not able to evict the occupiers, and apparently took no steps to perform the repairing covenants. They paid the rent up to August 1, 1922, and no further. On August 15, 1923, the landlords served the bank with notice to determine the lease for breach of the repairing covenant, and on September 10, 1923, they instituted proceedings in ejectment, claiming possession, arrears of rent up to August 15, 1923, mesne profits and damages for breaches of covenant. On December 1, 1923, the bank made application under s. 15 of the Rent Act of 1920 to the Controller appointed under the Act to fix the standard rent of the premises and to grant a certificate of the standard rent. On December 13, 1923, the landlords filed a counter statement. On March 11, 1924, the Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs.1420 per mensem and granted his certificate accordingly.

On March 22, 1924, the landlords appealed from the order of the Controller to the President of the Improvement Tribunal pursuant to s. 18 of the Rent Act, and on March 24 the bank also appealed to the President, seeking to have the standard rent fixed at a lower sum.

The Rent Act of 1920 was only to be in force for three years from May 5, 1920, but by the Calcutta Rent Amend ment Act of 1923 it was extended to the end of March, 1924. By the Calcutta Rent Amendment Act of 1924 it was further extended to the end of March, 1927, with a proviso that after March 31, 1924, it should cease to apply to any premises the rent of which exceeded Rs.250 a month or Rs.3000 a year on November 1, 1918.

The appeals before the President were adjourned for divers reasons from time to time until January 31, 1925, when he dismissed both appeals on the ground that the Act of 1920 had ceased to apply to the premises, and therefore he had no jurisdiction. It is admitted that this decision was wrong in law, the contrary having been decided by this Board in Keshoram Poddar v. Nundo Lal Maffick, (L. R. 54

I. A. 152.)

On February 23, 1925, the landl