Judgement

Appeal (No. 91 of 1925) from an order of the High Court (December 16, 1924).

The judgment of the High Court discharged a civil rule obtained by the present appellant under s. 115

Law. Rep. 54 Ind. App. 152 ( 1926- 1927)

Keshoram Poddar V. Nundo Lal Mallick 32

(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requiring the President of the Improvement Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction in revision vested in him by the Calcutta Rent Act, 1920, as amended.

The facts and the material enactments appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The case was heard in the High Court together with two other rules of the same nature, that in this case being No. 1025 of 1924. The learned judges (Greaves and Chakravarti JJ.), affirming the view of the President, held that the effect of the Act as amended was that it was a temporary Act which, as to premises with a rent of over Rs.250 a month, came wholly to an end on March 31, 1924, and that consequently there was no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter after that date. The judgment (sub nom. Kundalmul Dalmia v. W. Dyer) is reported at I. L. R. 52 C. 551.

A certificate was granted under s. 109 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure that the case was a fit one for appeal to the Privy Council, on the ground that it raised a question of great public importance.

1927. Feb. 4. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellant. The respondent did not appear.

Feb. 24. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

VISCOUNT DUNEDIN. The appellant in this case is the tenant, and the respondent is the landlord of certain premises in Calcutta.

The appellant was let into possession on June 1, 1920, as a tenant, but the rent payable was not then fixed. He remained in possession until March, 1923, and the question raised by the case is, what rent ought to be paid for that period of occupation.

After the entry in June, 1920, the question of rent being mooted, the respondent demanded from the appellant rent at the rate of Rs.4500 per mensem, inclusive of taxes. The appellant, conceiving that this demand was excessive, decided to avail himself of the provisions of the Calcutta Rent Act (Ben. Act

III. of 1920), which had come into force on May 5, 1920. By that Act, either the landlord or the tenant may apply to the Controller, an officer appointed under the Act, to fix the standard rent. By s. 18 of the Act an appeal is given from his decision to the President of the Improvement Tribunal, whose decision is declared to be final. The appellant accordingly applied to the Controller. On October 23, 1922, the Controller fixed the rent at Rs.4500 per month; on November 25, 1922, the appellant appealed to the President of the Improvement Committee to review that decision. The President, whose time was fully occupied by appeals, did not take up the appellants appeal at once, but from time to time adjourned the hearing, so that it was only finally disposed of on August 3, 1924. He disposed of it by holding that he had no jurisdiction to determine the matter. This he did because of two Acts which had been passed while the case was waiting for hearing before him.

In the original Act, s. 1, sub-s. 4, it was provided that the Act should commence when the local Government should, by notification, direct, and should continue for three years from that date. By the Calcutta Rent Amendment Act (Ben. Act II. of 1923) that provision was amended by the substitution of the fixed date of the end of March, 1924, for the expiration of three years from the commencement. A further amendment was made by the Calcutta Rent Amend ment Act (Ben. Act I. of 1924) by which the date 1927 was substituted for 1924, but there was added the following proviso " Provided that after the 31st day of March, 1924, this Act shall cease to apply to any premises the rent of which exceeded Rs.250 a month, or Rs.3000 a year, on the 1st day of November, 1918."

The appellant then applied to the High Court under s. 115 (b) of the Code of

Law. Rep. 54 Ind. App.