Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, GUHA RAY
DEOKI PROSAD KHAITAN - Appellant
Versus
DULICHAND ASOPA - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 85 Of 1953
Decided On : AUGUST 26, 1953
RENT CONTROL ACT, 1950 - SECTION 2(11), 3, 7, 9, 14(4), 14(5), 32(4), 32(6) - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 115 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLE 227 - EJECTMENT SUIT - STANDARDISATION OF RENT - APPEAL - DELAY IN FILING - CONDONATION - JURISDICTION - TENANT - EX-TENANT - LOCUS STANDI - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - RELEVANT PROVISIONS DISCUSSED AND ANALYSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, was served with an ejectment notice by the respondents, claiming to be the landlords. The appellant filed a suit for standardisation of rent under the Rent Control Act, 1950. The trial court decreed the ejectment suit and dismissed the standardisation suit. The appellant filed an appeal against the ejectment decree, which was dismissed for delay in filing the certified copy of the decree. The appellant also filed a revision petition against the dismissal of the standardisation suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had locus standi to maintain the standardisation proceedings, even though his tenancy had been terminated by the ejectment decree. The court also held that the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal for delay in filing the certified copy of the decree, as the appellant had sufficiently complied with the court's order under Section 14(5) of the Rent Control Act. The court further held that the appellant was entitled to condonation of delay in filing the certified copy of the decree, as the circumstances of the case warranted such condonation.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had locus standi to maintain the standardisation proceedings, even though his tenancy had been terminated by the ejectment decree? 2. Whether the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal for delay in filing the certified copy of the decree? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to condonation of delay in filing the certified copy of the decree?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant had locus standi to maintain the standardisation proceedings, even though his tenancy had been terminated by the ejectment decree, relying on the following: * The definition of "tenant" in Section 2(11) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, is broad enough to include an "ex-tenant" for the purpose of Section 9 of the Act. * The decision of the Privy Council in Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. v. Satya Niranjan, AIR 1928 PC 227, which held that an "ex-tenant" is entitled to apply for standardisation of rent, even after the termination of his tenancy. * The fact that the appellant was still in possession of the rented premises, which gave him a sufficient interest to maintain the standardisation proceedings. 2. The court held that the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal for delay in filing the certified copy of the decree, as the appellant had sufficiently complied with the court's order under Section 14(5) of the Rent Control Act. The court noted that the appellant had deposited the arrears of rent as directed by the court, and that the court had recorded an order stating that no further order was necessary on the application. 3. The court held that the appellant was entitled to condonation of delay in filing the certified copy of the decree, as the circumstances of the case warranted such condonation. The court noted that the appellant had filed an application for condonation of delay, and that he had explained the reasons for the delay. The court also noted that the respondents had not suffered any prejudice due to the delay.
Final Decision: The court set aside the dismissal of the appellant's appeal and remanded the case to the lower appellate court for a re-hearing of the appeal on the merits. The court also directed the lower appellate court to add the appearing opposite parties as opposite parties to the application for standardisation of rent, so that the proceedings could be decided with the real landlord on the record.
( 2 ) ON 24-2-1951, the Respondent No. 1, Dulichand Asofa and his brother Inderdiand Asofa, the predecessor of the other respondents claiming to be the landlords of the appellant instituted Ejectment Suit No. 456 of 1951 in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for eviction of the appellant from the disputed premises and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The main allegation in the plaint was that the appellant was a habitual defaulter and was not entitled to any protection under the Rent Control Act on account of his systematic defaults in the payment of rent.
( 3 ) THE defence inter alia was denial of the said allegation and a denial further that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the specific plea of the defendant in that behalf being that the Firm Dulichand Inderchand Asofa, and not the plaintiffs above named, were the appellant's landlords.
( 4 ) IN the trial Court an application was made by the plaintiffs under Section 14 (4), Rent Control Act of 1950 and, in pursuance of the order of the Court, passed upon that application, the appellant duly deposited arrears of rent. Eventually, however, on 24-7-1951, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge, overruling the defence contentions, and, from the said decree, an appeal, being Special Appeal No. 1939 of 1951, was taken by the defendant appellant to the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, constituted as the Appellate authority under the Rent Control Act of 1950.
( 5 ) THE defendant's appeal, to which, reference has been made above, was filed on 25-8-1951 and the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by a certified copy of the trial Court's judgment but no copy of the post-judgment or after-judgment record of the trial Court which is called the decree there was filed along with it. On 9-7-1952, the appellant tendered to the Court a certified copy of the post-judgment or after-judgment record which, according to the practice which had grown up in the Court of Small Causes Calcutta, was to be treated as the decree in ejectment suits. A prayer was also made in the appellant's behalf for acceptance of the said certified copy after condoning, if necessary, the delay, if any, in the matter of filing of the same.
( 6 ) IN the above appeal the plaintiffs respondents filed an application under Section 14 (5), Rent Control Act of 1950 and, upon the said application, the Court ordered certain deposits to be made (Vide order dated 29-2-1952 ). Those deposits appear to have been duly made (Vide order dated 25-4-1952 ).
( 7 ) THE appeal was then eventually taken up for hearing on 28-11-1952, and, at the hearing, two preliminary objections appear to have been urged by the respondents, namely, (1) that no certified copy of the trial court's decree having been filed in time and there being no case for extension of time or condonation of delay, the appeal was time-barred and must fail on that ground, and (2) that, in any event the appellant had not duly complied with the order of the appellate court, passed under Section 14 (5), Rent Control Act of 1950, and as such the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
( 8 ) BOTH these objections were accepted by the lower appellate court and the appellant's appeal was dismissed on 5-11-1952. Hence the present second appeal by the appellant who has also filed a revisional application in the alternative under Section 115, Civil P. C. , and Article 227 of the Constitution.
( 9 ) BEFORE us, both the above findings of the lower appellate court, on which the appellant's appeal was dismissed, have been challenged by his Counsel, Mr. Ashoke Kumar Sen. Mr. Sen has urged first tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
