1965 (5) TMI 36 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed, Upholding Controller's Final Order. Sub-tenant Rights

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court upheld the High Court's decision that the Controller's order of August 9, 1956, was final and could not be ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the respondent could take advantage of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.2. Whether the respondent was a sub-tenant before March 31, 1956.3. Whether the Controller's order of August 9, 1956, was final.4. Whether the Controller had jurisdiction to rescind the order of August 9, 1956, based on subsequent events.5. Whether Section 16(3) of the Act applies if the original tenancy had ended before the final order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the respondent could take advantage of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:The court found that 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 tenancy. The court held that Po continued to be a tenant under the Act until August 22, 1956, when the decree for ejectment was passed against him. Therefore, the respondent continued to be a sub-tenant after the coming into force of the Act.2. Whether the respondent was a sub-tenant before March 31, 1956:The Controller accepted the respondent's case that it had become the sub-tenant of Po in fact from June 9, 1954. The court upheld this finding, noting that the appellant had not given notice to Po determining his tenancy until July 1954. Therefore, the respondent was a sub-tenant of the tenancy which Po held under the appellant.3. Whether the Controller's order of August 9, 1956, was final:The court held that the order of August 9, 1956, must be treated as final insofar as it declared the tenancy of the tenant of the first degree to have ceased and declared the sub-tenant to be the direct tenant of the landlord. The court emphasized that this order could not be a mere interlocutory order that could be rescinded by the Controller while fixing the rent.4. Whether the Controller had jurisdiction to rescind the order of August 9, 1956, based on subsequent events:The court found that the Controller had no power to set aside the order made on August 9, 1956, as it was right when it was made. The court noted that the Controller could not review the order on the ground of discovery of new and important matter that transpired after the date of the order. The court also held that the Controller could not set aside the order under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as there was no question of subserving the ends of justice or preventing the abuse of the process of the court.5. Whether Section 16(3) of the Act applies if the original tenancy had ended before the final order:The court rejected the appellant's contention that Section 16(3) would not apply because the tenant had been ejected on August 22, 1956, and thereafter the sub-tenant could not claim the benefit of Section 16(3). The court held that the benefit of Section 16(3) was given to the sub-tenant before August 22, 1956, i.e., on August 9, 1956. The order of August 9, 1956, was final and was not open to review or cancellation by the Controller, who thereafter only had to fix the rent under the second part of Section 16(3).Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court upheld the High Court's decision that the Controller's order of August 9, 1956, was final and could not be rescinded based on subsequent events. The court also affirmed that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and continued to be a sub-tenant after the Act came into force.