The rent paid for furnished premises with services is rent in the true sense of the term, and includes payment for the services provided by the landlord.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and order of Bose J. made on an appln. under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applt. applied to this Ct. for the issue of writs of certiorari or prohibition for quashing or prohibiting certain proceedings for the fixation of standard rent of premises initiated by a tenant and then pending, before the Rent Controller of Calcutta. There was an alternative prayer for an order on the parties Under Section 45, Specific Relief Act. Bose J. came to then conclusion that there was no force whatsoever in the contentions of the applt. landlord and he accordingly dismissed the appln. in its entirety. From that order this present appeal has been preferred.

( 2 ) THE applt. is the lessee of a large block of flats known as No. 209 Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. The applt. was the tenant of these flats under a trust estate and one of the 145 flats comprised in the building was sublet to the resp. W. C. Read. The flat was let to Mr. Bead at a rent of Rs. 190 per month and by the terms of the tenancy agreement the applt. was bound to provide the tenant with electricity for various purposes, namely, lights, fans, cooking stoves, refrigerators, irons, radios or radiograms and also with hot water, the services of a lift and free services of sweepers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, durwans and watchmen. The flat was let furnished and it would appear that the landlord was bound to execute repairs and to renew the furniture and fittings when the latter became deteriorated.

( 3 ) ON 18-12-1950, the tenant resp. made an appln. in the Ct. of the Rent Controller, who has been made a party to these proceedings, for fixation of the standard rent under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The applt applied to the Ct. of the Rent Controller for dismissal of the tenant's appln. on the around that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the appln. or to determine the standard rent. On 17-1-1951, the Rent Controller rejected the appln. of the applt. and ultimately transferred the case to the Addl. Rent Controller, who has also been made a party in these proceedings, for disposal.

( 4 ) ON 20-1-1951, the applt. appealed from the order of the Rent Controller to the Dist. J. of 24-Parganas. An appln. was made to the learned Dist. J. for a stay of all proceedings, but that appln. was refused. It is to be observed that the learned Dist. J. has not yet decided the appeal.

( 5 ) WHEN a stay of proceedings was refused by the learned Dist. J. an appln. for prerogative writs was made in this Ct. which was ultimately disposed of by Bose J.

( 6 ) IT had been contended before Bose J. and it has again been contended before us that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain this appln. for fixing the standard rent. In the alternative it is contended that if the Rent Controller has jurisdiction, he has only jurisdiction to fix the standard rent of the premises which would not include any payment for the services rendered by the landlord applt. It is suggested that if the Rent Controller has any jurisdiction he would have to consider what part of the sum of Rs. 190 constituted a payment for the furnished premises apart from the services and what part constituted a payment for the services. The suggestion is that only such part of the Rs. 190 as could be rightly attributed to the premises and furniture should be regarded as rent for the purposes of fixing the standard rent.

( 7 ) BOSE J. rejected these contentions and held that Rs. 190 constituted the rent of the premises. The premises had been let by a written agreement and by the terms of the agreement the landlord had covenanted to perform certain acts or services for a payment of a lump sum as rent of the premises. That being so, Bose J. was of opinion that the rent at which these premises were let was Rs. 190 and that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to ascertain a