TMI Blog1965 (5) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as then in force. That suit was still pending when the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, No. XII of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force from March 31, 1956. Section 16 (3) of the Act gave certain rights to sub-tenants. As the appeal turns on the interpretation of that provision, it is necessary to set it out here:- 16(1) .lm15 (2)Where before the commencement of this Act, the tenant, with or without the consent of the landlord, has sublet any premises either in whole or in part, the tenant and every sub-tenant to whom the premises have been sublet shall give notice to the landlord of such subletting in the prescribed manner within six months of the commencement of the Act and shall in the prescribed manner notify the termination of such sub-tenancy within one month of such termination. (3) Where in any case mentioned in sub-section (2) there is no consent in writing of the landlord and the landlord denies that he gave oral consent, the Controller shall, on an application made to him in this behalf either by the landlord or the sub-tenant within two months of the date of the receipt of the notice of sub-letting by the landlord or the issue of the notice by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The Inspector was also directed to make note of advantages and amenities of all the premises measured by him and thereafter submit his report as to the fixation of fair rent. A date was fixed for the submission of the Inspector's report and thereafter the fair rent was to be fixed. Before however the Inspector's report was received, the suit for ejectment of Po pending in the Court of Small Causes was decreed on August 22, 1956 and time was given to him to vacate the same by the end of October 1956. Therefore on September 11, 1956, the appellant filed what it called an additional written objection. in that the appellant informed the Controller that a decree for ejectment against Po had been passed. It was urged that in view of that decree, Po was no longer a tenant of the appellant and therefore the respondent could not be a sub-tenant. The appellant prayed that the application of the respondent was not maintainable, in the circumstances and the Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and so the application should be dismissed. The matter then came up before the Controller on January 29, 1957. on. which date the appellant's addi- tional objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Controller had no jurisdiction after August 9, 1956 to rescind it. The High Court pointed out that as on August 9, 1956, when the order under the first part of s. 16(3) was passed, the tenancy of the tenant of the first degree was subsisting, action could be taken under s. 16(3) in favour of the respondent. In this view of the matter, the revision application of the appellant was dismissed except as to the fixation of rent. It is this order of the High Court which is being impugned before us by special leave. We are of opinion that the appeal must fail. There is a clear finding of the Controller that the respondent was inducted as a sub-tenant by Po in June 1954. At that time, the appellant had not even given notice to Po determining his tenancy. It was only in July 1954 that notice was given to Po determining the tenancy as from the end of August 1954. Therefore, the respondent became a sub-tenant of the tenancy which Po held under the appellant. The next question is whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the Act which came into force on March 31, 1956. On that date a suit was pending against Po based on the notice given to him in July 1954 determining his ten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecessary. Even so, the order under the first part declaring that the tenant's interest has ceased and the sub- tenant has become a tenant directly under the landlord must be treated as final so far as the Controller is concerned and it cannot be a mere interlocutory order, which could be rescinded by the Controller while he is taking steps to fix the rent as provided in the second part of s. 16(3). In this connection our attention is drawn to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Anil Kumar Mukherjee v. Malin Kumar Mazumdar(1), where it was held with reference to S. 29 of the Act that the words final order there mean the order making the declaration and fixing the rent under s. 16(3) or the order dismissing the application under s. 16(3). We do not propose to consider whether Mukherjee's case is correctly decided. Assuming it to be correct, what it lays down inter alia is that an order under the first part of s. 16(3) merely making a declaration without the further order fixing rent under the second part thereof is not appealable as a final order under S. 29. But what we are concerned with here is whether it was open to the Controller after he had made the order decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
