Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harries, Das
P. C. GUHA - Appellant
Versus
B. A. BASIL - Respondent
Civil Revn. Cases 1374 Of 1950
Decided On : MAY 31, 1951
RENT CONTROL ACT - STANDARD RENT FIXATION - REVISION - JURISDICTION - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - RIGHT OF REVISION - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERFERENCE WITH DECISIONS OF TRIBUNALS.
Fact of the Case:
Two connected revision cases from orders of an appellate Court made in proceedings for fixation of standard rent. The petitioners were tenants of two rooms together with a bath and kitchen in premises known as 15-A Lindsay Street and two suites of rooms on the first floor of 15a Lindsay Street, respectively. The opposite party landlord made applications to the Rent Controller for fixation of the standard rent of these premises. The Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 160-14-0 and Rs. 216-15-3, respectively. The petitioners preferred appeals to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes Calcutta, who substantially upheld the orders. The petitioners filed revision petitions in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that no revision lay in either of the cases under Section 32 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, as the appeals were governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1948 and not by the 1950 Act. The Court further held that the appellate Court had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeals as the order of transfer to the 5th Bench for disposal was not made under the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1948 and Sri U. N. Majumdar was not a person entitled to hear an appeal on transfer under the provisions of Section 32, Sub-sections (2) and (3) Rent Control Act of 1948.
Issues: 1. Whether a revision lay in the cases under Section 32 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950? 2. Whether the appellate Court had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeals?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that no revision lay in either of the cases under Section 32 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, as the appeals were governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1948 and not by the 1950 Act. The Court held that Section 17 (3) of the 1950 Act, which provided that the provisions relating to the fixation of standard rent contained in the 1950 Act should apply to pending proceedings or appeals, did not make the whole of the provisions of the 1950 Act applicable to the appeals pending when that Act came into force. The Court further held that Sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the 1950 Act, which provided for a right of revision, only applied to appeals heard by the appellate tribunal set up by the 1950 Act from orders made by a Rent Controller after that Act came into force. 2. The Court held that the appellate Court had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeals as the order of transfer to the 5th Bench for disposal was not made under the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1948 and Sri U. N. Majumdar was not a person entitled to hear an appeal on transfer under the provisions of Section 32, Sub-sections (2) and (3) Rent Control Act of 1948.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the orders of the learned Appellate Judge and remanded the appeals to be heard and decided by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes personally or by such other person to whom the appeals can be properly transferred for disposal under the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 32, Rent Control Act of 1948.
( 1 ) THESE are two connected revision cases from orders of an appellate Court made in proceedings for fixation of standard rent.
( 2 ) P. C. Guha, the petnr. in Civil Revision Case No. 1372 of 1950 was a tenant of two rooms together with a bath and kitchen in premises known as 15-A Lindsay Street. He became a tenant on 1/6/1946 at a monthly rental of Rs. 55. 00. This rent was increased in October, 1947 to Rs. 66-8-0 and further increased in December 1948 to Rs. 68-9-0. It was said that the rent payable for these premises on 1/12/1941 was Rs. 55. 00 per month.
( 3 ) THE opposite party landlord made an application to the Rent Controller for fixation of the standard rent of these premises contending that the standard rent should be Rs. 200. 00 per month. The tenant filed objections and on 5/12/1949 the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 160-14-0 and directed that that rent should take effect from the month of July 1949.
( 4 ) THE petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes Calcutta, on 3-1-1950 and by an order dated 5-8-1950 a learned Small Cause Court Judge, Shri U. N. Majumdar, to whom the appeal had been transferred, substantially upheld the order making a slight reduction in the standard rent.
( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of Sri U. N. Majumdar the petnr. P. C. Guha filed these proceedings in this Court.
( 6 ) THE petitioner L. R. Martin in Civil Revision Case No. 1374 of 1950 was tenant of two suites of rooms on the first floor of 15a Lindsay Street. The rent of the premises, it was said, on 1-12-1949 was Rs. 60/- per mensem, but rent had been enhanced sometime in 1946 to Rs. 66/- per mensem and in 1948 to Rs. 74-4/- per mensem.
( 7 ) ON 13-7-1949 the opposite party landlord applied to the Rent Controller for the fixation of the standard rent of these premises and he claimed that the standard rent should be Rs. 250/ -. The tenant objected and the matter came before the learned Rent Controller who by his order dated 5-12-1949 fixed the standard rent at Rs. 216-15-3.
( 8 ) THE tenant petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court which appeal was in due course transferred to Sri U. N. Majumdar for disposal. On 5-8-1950 the learned Judge allowed the apppeal in part and fixed the standard rent of the premises at Rs. 182-9-9 per month with effect from May, 1950. From that order the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
( 9 ) THE petitioners argued before us that this Court should revise the orders of the appellate tribunal by reason of Section 32 (4), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. That sub-section provides that from any order made in an appeal provided for in the Act a revision lies to the H. C. on the ground of error of law or on the ground of a material failure of justice. The sub-section however provides that from the order of the appellate tribunal no further appeal shall lie.
( 10 ) THE contention in both the cases is that there have been errors of law and that in both cases there has been material failure of justice. Therefore it is said that a revision lies.
( 11 ) ON behalf of the respondent a preliminary objection has been taken that no revision lies in these cases as they were cases filed in the year 1949 and actually decided by the Rent Controller before the end of 1949, that is, well before the Rent Control Act of 1950, which replaced the Rent Control Act of 1948, came into force.
( 12 ) IT had been held by this Court on numerous occasions that there was no right of revision from an order of an appellate tribunal under the Rent Control Act of 1948. The contention on behalf of the opposite party was that these were orders made in appeals which were governed by the provisions of the 1948 Act and therefore no revision lay to this Ct.
( 13 ) ON behalf of the petitioners it was contended in reply that the provisions of the 1950 Act applied to these proceedings b
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
