( 1 ) THIS is a reference made to a Special Division Bench, under the second proviso to Rule 1, Chapter II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. The particular question of law referred for determination is : "whether Rule 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Rules 1950 is ultra vires. "

( 2 ) RULE 9 above referred to is quoted below :"9. In making inquiries under the Act, the Controller, the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, the District Judge or the Judicial Officer to whom the case may be transferred under the provision of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 3,908, for the regular trial of suits, the substance only of the evidence being recorded as in unappealable cases and shall record in brief 'the reasons for his findings. "

( 3 ) I need refer to the facts of the case briefly, so as to understand how this reference came to be made.

( 4 ) THE petitioner Sethia Properties is the owner of premises No. 19 Doy Street, Calcutta. Suite No. 7, in the said premises, originally used to be occupied by one C. A. Sarkies, as a monthly tenant. At his instance the rent of the said suite had been standardised at Rs. 69-5-0 per month, with effect from the month of May 1950. After the said Sarkies had left the suite, the same was let to the present opposite party, from the month of February, 1952, at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. A sum of Rs. 150/- was also received by the petitioner, from the opposite party, by way of advance payment of one month's rent.

( 5 ) ON April 23, 1952, the opposite party filed an application before the first Additional Kent Controller, inter alia, praying : (a) that the landlord be ordered to receive rent at the rate as standardised, (b) that the landlord be directed to refund the advance payment of one month's rent and also the amounts received month by month in excess of the standard rent, and (c) that the landlord be dealt with under Section 33 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.

( 6 ) FOR reasons with which we are not concerned at this stage, the aforesaid application was heard ex parte. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had realised Rs. 243-1-0 knowingly in excess of the standard rent. He further came to the conclusion that the landlord had taken deliberate advantage of the helpless condition of the tenant and a very severe penalty was called for. By his order, dated June 27, 1952, the Rent Controller imposed a fine of Rs. 1200/- on the landlord, in exercise of his power under Section 33 (1) (i) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.

( 7 ) THE landlord preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, being Appeal No. 870 of 1952. The appeal succeeded and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for re-hearing on merits,

( 8 ) AT the rehearing, the landlord took up the opposition that the premises let to the opposite party was not the same premises as had been let to C. A. Sarkies, because considerable additions, alterations and improvements to the premises had been effected before the same was let out to the opposite party. It was, therefore, contended that the rent standardised in respect of the premises let to C. A. Sarkies would not apply to the altered and improved premises let to the opposite party.

( 9 ) THE Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises let to the Opposite Party was the same premises as had been let to C. A. Sarkies and came to the further conclusion that the landlord had deliberately and knowingly realised rent in excess of the standard rent. The total realisation in excess of standard rent, the Rent Controller found, amounted to Rs. 243-1-0. The Rent Controller directed the landlord to refund the excess amount realised and further imposed a fine of R