HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
RAKHALDAS MUKHERJEE - Appellant
Versus
S. P. GHOSE - Respondent
. Of .
Decided On : FEBRUARY 14, 1951
WEST BENGAL PREMISES RENT CONTROL ACT, 1948 - SECTION 2(8)(B) - TENANT OR LODGER - JURISDICTION OF RENT CONTROLLER - EVIDENCE - CERTIORARI - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the secretary of the Calcutta Sub-Committee of the Khulna District Congress Committee and Secretary, 'Khulna Nibas' Boarding Establishment, alleged that the Government made over the premises to him for the purpose of starting educational institutions, residential boarding house for evacuees, and for affording accommodation facilities to displaced businessmen from East Bengal. Several inmates of the house made applications before the Rent Controller, some for fixing fair rates of their lodgings as lodgers under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1948, and others for fixation of fair rent as tenants. The Rent Controller dealt with these applications and fixed the standard rent and gave certain directions for repairs.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller came to a clear finding that the applicants in the eight cases lived in a portion which was quite distinct and separate from the Boarding House.
Issues: 1. Whether the applicants were tenants or lodgers? 2. Whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to fix the standard rent and order repairs? 3. Whether there was evidence before the Rent Controller to enable him to come to the finding that the applicants were tenants? 4. Whether the Rent Controller could decide that the applicants before him were tenants without any evidence? 5. Whether the question of whether the applicants were tenants or not was a collateral question? 6. Whether the Rent Controller could give himself jurisdiction by deciding the point wrongly or without evidence? 7. Whether a writ of certiorari should be granted where there exists a remedy by the Act itself and the citizen is actually availing himself of such a remedy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Rent Controller had jurisdiction to fix the standard rent and order repairs if the applicants were tenants, but not if they were lodgers. 2. There was evidence before the Rent Controller to enable him to come to the finding that the applicants were tenants. 3. The Rent Controller could not decide that the applicants before him were tenants without any evidence. 4. The question of whether the applicants were tenants or not was a collateral question. 5. The Rent Controller could not give himself jurisdiction by deciding the point wrongly or without evidence. 6. A writ of certiorari may be granted where there exists a remedy by the Act itself and the citizen is actually availing himself of such a remedy, but the Court has discretion to refuse the writ if the alternative remedy is equally efficacious and adequate.
Final Decision: The application for a writ of certiorari was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is a rule upon the respondent, the Second Additional Rent Controller, Calcutta, directing him to show cause why his orders dated February 23, 1950, and March 22, 1950, as mentioned in the rule, should not be set aside and/or why a writ of certiorari should not issue for quashing the same. As the application, with regard to the last named order has been abandoned, I am only concerned with the order dated February 23, 1950.
( 2 ) THE facts are shortly as follows: Premises Nos. 116a and 118a, Mechua Bazar Street, were requisitioned by the Government for a 'public purpose'. The petitioner describes himself as the 'secretary of the Calcutta Sub-Committee of the Khulna District Congress Committee', and Secretary, 'khulna Nibas' Boarding Establishment', and he says that me Government made over the premises to him for the purppses of starting educational institutions, residential boarding house for (evacuees and for affording accommodation facilities to displaced business men from East Bengal. It appears that in a portion of the house there is a school, and in another portion, a boarding house under the name and style of 'khulna Nibas. It is also alleged that rooms are let out on rent and in a part of the house, there is a dispensary. Several inmates of the house made applications before the Rent Controller, some for fixing fair rate of their lodgings as lodgers under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1948, and others for fixation of fair rent as tenants. The tenants also made applications for repairs. The Rent Controller (the respondent) dealt with these applications, and as regards the first group, they have already been the subject-matter of an application under Article 226 before me. The present rule relates to eight applications made by three persons who claim to be tenants, for fixation of rent) and repairs. The names of the tenants are Harendranath Datta (Case No. 2755 C and 2758 C of 1949), Paresh Kanti Sarkar (Case Nos. 2760 C and 2761 C and 2756 C and 2757 C of 1949), and Krishna Gopal Kundu (Case Nos. 2754 C and 2759 C of 1949 ). A boarder called Parimal Mazumdar made an application for fixation of standard rent (Case No. 59 C of 1950 ). So far as Case No. 59 C of 1950 is concerned, it is admitted that Parimal Majumdar was a boarder and therefore his case is governed by the rule that has already been disposed of by me previously. I am now concerned with the order in respect of the three tenants who had instituted the eight cases above named, all of which eight cases were disposed of by the respondent, by one order dated the 23rd February, 1950. By that order, the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent and gave certain directions for repair. If the applicants were tenants, it is not disputed that the Rent Controller was quite competent to fix the standard rent and order repairs to be carried out. It is however, alleged that the applicants were not tenants but boarders and/or lodgers of the boarding house called 'khulna Nibas'. It is equally not disputed by the respondent that if they are in fact not tenants but lodgers, the respondent had no right to fix the standard rent or; order any repairs to be carried out. Therefore, the only dispute is as to the question of fact, namely, whether the three applicants before the. Rent Controller are 'tenants' or 'lodgers'. The matter, has been dealt with by the respondent in his order dated 23rd February 1950 as follows:"secondly it was contended by the learned lawyer for the O. P. that the applications are not maintainable in view of the provisions of clause (b) of Sub Section 8 of Section 2 of W. B. P. R. C. Act, 1948. It has been stated there that the expression 'premises' does not include a room or part of a room or other accommodation in a hotel or lodging house. The learned lawyer argued that there is a hotel or lodging house in the disputed premises run by Khulna Nibas No. 1, merely because there is a hotel situated in a portion or portions of prem
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.