An appeal against an order of the Rent Controller passed under Section 30 or 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 lies to the appellate authority as prescribed in Section 29 of the Act, and the Criminal Procedure Code does not govern such appeals.

T. P. MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed with the leave of the court under Section 417 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order of a Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta functioning as the appellate authority under Section 29 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956. The appellant is a tenant who made a complaint to the Rent Controller against the landlords - the present respondents - to the effect that they had wilfully stopped the supply of filtered and unfilter- ed water to his premises, that the supply was comprised in the tenancy and is essential thereto.

( 2 ) THE Rent Controller acting under 8. 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) found that the allegation regarding Interference with the supply of filtered water had been proved and on this finding he imposed a fine of Rs. 200 on the landlords and directed them to deposit the amount in court within seven days. They were further directed to restore the supply of filtered water within 72 hours.

( 3 ) THE landlords took an appeal to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta. The appeal was transferred to another Judge of the Court and the transferee judge found that although there was stoppage of supply of filtered water to the premises of the tenant there was no evidence in the case that the same was due to direct interference with the supply by the landlords. On 'this finding he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. It is against this order that the tenant filed this appeal with the leave af the court.

( 4 ) MR. Bejoy Kumar Bhose appearing for the respondent landlords took a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable. According to him no appeal lies to the High Court from the order of the appellate authority under Section 29 of the Act inasmuch as the said authority is not a court as contemplated by Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code and further in view of the fact that the order made by him in the case is not an order of acquittal.

( 5 ) TO this Mr. Krishna Benode Roy appearing for the appellant contends that the appellate authority under Section 29 of the Act is a court and that the proceeding before the Rent Controller being of a criminal nature to which the Criminal Procedure Code applies, there is no reason why the order of the appellate authority setting aside the Rent Controller's order in this case should not be treated as an order of acquittal. He also argued that if no appeal lies in this case against the order made by the appellate authority, the petition of appeal may be treated as one under Article 227 of the Constitution.

( 6 ) ON the merits of the case Mr. Roy contended that the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta, or for the matter of that the transferee judge of the court is not competent to hear appeals from orders af the Rent Controller made under Section 30 or 31 of the Act which are passed in proceedings of a quasi criminal nature to which the provi-tions of the Criminal Procedure Code are attracted, that as such the order appealed against is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

( 7 ) THE argument in support of the contention is that the appellate authority under Section 29 of the Act is not competent to hear appeals (sic from orders?) passed by the Rent Controller under Section 30 or 31 inasmuch as under Section 29 (3) of the Act, the appeals are to be filed and disposed of in the manner prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code and if so, the provision relating to appeals against the Rent Controller's order cannot apply to appeals against such orders as are made under the Criminal Procedure Code and which as such must attract the provisions of that Code in matters of appeals, an appeal being merely a continuation of the original proceeding. If, therefore, no appeal lay to the Chief Judge in this case the order made in appeal is without jurisdiction and must be set aside and the order o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document