Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harries, G. N. Das, Banerjee
ISWARI PROSAD - Appellant
Versus
N. R. SEN - Respondent
Civil Rules 1370 Of 1950
Decided On : JULY 30, 1951
RENT CONTROL ACT - CONSTITUTIONALITY - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTIONS - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - APPLICABILITY TO ORDERS OF SMALL CAUSE COURT - CONSENT ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
Two connected civil revision cases arising out of orders made by learned Judges of the Small Causes Court vacating orders for ejectment which had been made under Section 12 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Provisions (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948. In each of the cases the orders were vacated under the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act of 1950.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned legislation was not ultra vires the Constitution and that the restrictions imposed on the landlords' rights were not unreasonable in the interest of the general public. The Court further held that Section 18 (1) of the Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended, applied to orders for possession made in the Presidency Small Cause Court under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and that the orders in the present cases were not consent orders and were therefore within the terms of Section 18 (1).
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned legislation was ultra vires the Constitution? 2. Whether the restrictions imposed on the landlords' rights were unreasonable in the interest of the general public? 3. Whether Section 18 (1) of the Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended, applied to orders for possession made in the Presidency Small Cause Court under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act? 4. Whether the orders in the present cases were consent orders?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned legislation was not ultra vires the Constitution on the grounds that: - The restrictions imposed on the landlords' rights were reasonable in the interest of the general public, as they were necessary to address the grave housing shortage caused by the war and partition. - The restrictions were not arbitrary or excessive, and they struck a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution and the social control permitted by Clause (6) of Article 19. 2. The Court held that the restrictions imposed on the landlords' rights were not unreasonable in the interest of the general public, as they were necessary to address the grave housing shortage caused by the war and partition. 3. The Court held that Section 18 (1) of the Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended, applied to orders for possession made in the Presidency Small Cause Court under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, as the word "decree" in Section 18 (1) was intended to cover orders of the small cause Court which were not strictly and technically decrees. 4. The Court held that the orders in the present cases were not consent orders, as they were not made as the result of any agreement between the parties, but rather on the tenant's confession of judgment after his application for an adjournment was refused.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THESE are two connected civil revision cases arising out of orders made by learned Judges of the Small Causes Court vacating orders for ejectment which had been made under Section 12 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Provisions (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948. In each of the cases the orders were vacated under the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act of 1950.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to Civil Revision No. 1369 of 1950. can be shortly stated as follows: The petitioner was the owner of premises known as No. 12 Pollock Street, Calcutta, whereas the opposite party was a monthly tenant of one room on the first floor of the said premises paying a monthly rental of Rs. 24-12-0. The tenant failed to pay the rent payable by him for the three consecutive months of March, April and May, 1949, whereupon the petitioner brought proceedings in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, to eject the opposite party. By reason of Section 12 (3) of the West Bengal Rent Control Act, of 1948 the tenant's interest was ipso facto determined upon his failure to pay the rent for the three consecutive months already mentioned and an order was made evicting the opposite party. This order had not-been executed when the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1950, was passed and an application was made by the tenant under Section 18 (1) of the-1950 Act. for vacating the order for possession. The arrears of rent were deposited in Court and an order was made vacating the previous order for possession and it is this order which is the-subject of this revision.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1370' of 1950. is the owner of premises known as 44/1 Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta whereas the opposite party was the tenant of one room in the said premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 23-6-0. The tenant failed to pay the rent of these premises for three consecutive months after the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1948, came into force and thereupon his interest in the said tenancy was ipso facto determined. Proceedings were brought by the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes for possession of this room and an order for possession was made in due course. It is to be observed that when the case was called on for hearing an application was made on behalf of the tenant for an adjournment on the ground that he was unable to attend. This application was rejected whereupon Counsel for the tenant confessed judgment and the order for possession was made on such confession with costs.
( 4 ) LATER after the passing of the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1950, an application was made to the Court by the tenant Under-section 18 (1) of that Act for vacating the order. The arrears of rent were deposited in Court and the order was vacated. It is this order which has given rise to this Civil Revision Case.
( 5 ) IN both these cases it has been urged that the orders made by the Court under Section 18 (1) of the 1950 Act, are void and had no effect because the Rent Control Act of 1950 and in particular Section 18 (1) of the Act as amended by the amending Act of 1950, are ultra vires the Constitution of India, and that being so, no order could validly be made under the provisions of that sub-section.
( 6 ) IN the first place it was argued that all these Rent Control Acts were ultra vires in that they imposed restrictions, which were wholly unreasonable, upon the owner's right to deal with his own property. It was argued that by reason of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner as a citizen of the Republic had a right to hold property and that this right could not be interfered with by legislation except as provided by Clause (5) of that Article. By Clause (5), only restrictions which are reasonable in the interests of the general public can be imposed by legislation on the right t
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
