Back
High Court Of Calcutta
RAMENDRA MOHAN DATTA, PRADYOT KUMAR BANERJEE, CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE
ARUN BROTHERS - Appellant
Versus
SAKTI PRASANNA CHATERJEE - Respondent
Civil Rule 2946 Of 1974
Decided On : 07/22/1982
RENT CONTROL - CHALLAN - CORRECTION - POWER OF RENT CONTROLLER - CONTROLLER IS NOT A COURT - DEPOSIT OF RENT - ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION - CONTROLLER HAS NO POWER TO CORRECT CHALLAN - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 (WEST BENGAL ACT XVII OF 1956), SECTIONS 2 (B), 11, 21, 26, 29(5).
Fact of the Case:
The tenant deposited rent with the Rent Controller in wrong name of the landlord. The landlord filed an application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Rent Controller rejected the tenant's application for correction of the challans. The tenant filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was also dismissed. The tenant came up in Civil Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court. The matter was referred to the Division Bench in view of the fact that it involved public importance. The Division Bench referred the matter to the learned Chief Justice for constituting a Special Division Bench for hearing the question of law involved therein.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller is not a Court, but an administrative officer. The deposit of rent with the Rent Controller is an administrative function. The Controller has no power to correct the challan. The deeming provision of Sub-section (5) of Section 29 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 cannot be applied when the Controller is not dealing with any of the proceedings under the Act but he is functioning administratively or in his ministerial capacity.
Issues: Whether the Rent Controller has the power to correct a rent control challan by which a tenant deposits rent with the Rent Controller in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The scheme of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 including the amendments thereof aims at the protection of the tenants from eviction except on the grounds provided therein. Such protection has been denied to the tenants if the tenants would fail to pay or deposit the rent in the manner provided by the said statute. In case of deposit of rent with the Rent Controller the tenants are required to observe certain formalities as provided in the Act and as prescribed by the Rules framed thereunder, so that there might not be any impediment on the part of the person or persons claiming to be entitled thereto to withdraw the same from the office of the Rent Controller. The tenant can deposit the vent with the Rent Controller. The tenant can deposit the rent with the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Act when the landlord does not accept the rent tendered to him or where there is bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable. Accordingly, if the deposits are made in wrong names or in respect of wrong months, serious complications might arise hi the matter of such deposit and withdrawals. Strictly speaking such deposits would not be deposits as provided by the statute and in the Rules. Such being the position, the deposits have to be made in such a manner that the same might be withdrawn without any impediment and the formalities attached to it must be strictly observed.
Final Decision: The Rule obtained by the tenant-petitioner must fail. The Civil Rule be discharged without any order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS matter has come up before this Special Bench as a result of the difference of opinion expressed by the Bench of S. K. Datta and H. N. Sen, JJ. in the above matter with another Division Bench decision of this Court in Manick Chand Durga Prosad and Bros. v. Bulakidas Baheti, reported in.
( 2 ) THE interesting point on which the above two Division Beaches have expressed their divergent views is whether the Kent Controller has the power to correct a rent control challan by which a tenant deposits rent with the Rent Controller in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. To be more precise, the point involved is whether the rent control challans, with which the rents have been deposited in the wrong name of the landlord Sakti Prosad Chatterjee in the place and stead of Sakti Prosanna Chatterjee, could be corrected by the Rent Controller. The point has to be decided on the basis of the law as stands and as is provided by the said West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. One would be tempted to ask --what, if 'prosad' is corrected to read 'prosanna' ? But the question has to be decided on the basis of whether or not the Rent Controller has been vested with the power to do so. What is the nature of the power which is exercised by the Rent Controller in the matter of such corrections ? Is it his administrative function or is it quasi-judicial ? Can he have inherent power to correct the challan ?
( 3 ) BESIDES the decision in Manick Chand Durga Prosad v. Buiakidas Baheti (supra) there have been several pronouncements of this Court and the views expressed therein appear to be unanimous on the point that there is no express provision in the said statute, viz. West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 empowering the Rent Controller to correct such challans and, as such, the Kent Controller, Dot being a Court, could not have, in his administrative capacity, exercised such powef. The only view that has been expressed against the preponderance of the authorities, has been expressed by the Bench of S. K. Datta and H. N. Sen, JJ. in the above matter, inter alia, in the following words: "the Division Bench consisting of D. N. Sinha, C. J. and A. K. Mukherjea, J. observed as follows (at p. 107):"in any case, aay order of delegation even if such order existed would, in our opinion, be useless, for, there is nothing in the Act which gives any power even to the Controller himself to make corrections in challans and vary the appropriation of the rent to a month other than what is mentioned in the application. ""it was obvious that their Lordships were of opinion that under the provisions of law no power was given to the Rent Controller to correct a challan. ""in our opinion, the question whether the Rent Controller under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 has any power to correct the challan is a matter of general importance and, prima facie, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Division Bench. Accordingly, it is desirable that the matter should be considered by a larger Bench. We, accordingly, refer the matter to the learned Chief Justice for appointing a Special Division Beach for hearing the question of law involved in this case under the second provision of R. 1 of Chap. II of the Appellate Side Rules. "
( 4 ) THE matter arose out of an application in Misc. Case No. 404 of 1973 filed to fore the Rent Controller who rejected such application for correction of challans. The tenant filed an appeal to the District Judge, 24 Parganas m Appeal No. 21 of 1974 and the same was dismissed by order dated June 18, 1974. Thereafter a Rule was issued in the Civil Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order should not be set aside, and an ad interim order of stay of the hearing of the application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was granted for two months with liber
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
