Skip to content


Ram Prosad Rajgharia Vs. British Insulated Callender's Cables Ltd. (21.05.1952 - CALHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Civil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 1187 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Cal13,57CWN540
ActsWest Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 - Sections 3 and 7; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 144
AppellantRam Prosad Rajgharia
RespondentBritish Insulated Callender's Cables Ltd.
Advocates:Anil Kumar Sett, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....on the petitioner's application at rs. 920-8 with effect from august, 1949 by the additional rent controller, both the tenant and the landlord appealed. the landlord's appeal was dismissed but the tenant's appeal was allowed and the appellate court set aside the additional rent controller's order on the finding that there could be no standardisation of rent in view of the proviso to section 3, west bengal premises rent control act, 1950. meanwhile the landlord had realised the sum of rs. 3246/- from the tenant representing the difference in rent between the old rate and the new rate of rs. 650/- and rs. 920-8 as per month, respectively, for the period from august 1949 to july 1950. the tenant made an application purporting to be under section 7, west bengal premises rent control.....
Judgment:

K.C. Das Gupta, J.

1. The rent of the tenancy which the opposite party held under the present petitioner having been standardised on the petitioner's application at Rs. 920-8 with effect from August, 1949 by the Additional Rent Controller, both the tenant and the landlord appealed. The landlord's appeal was dismissed but the tenant's appeal was allowed and the appellate Court set aside the Additional Rent Controller's order on the finding that there could be no standardisation of rent in view of the proviso to Section 3, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. Meanwhile the landlord had realised the sum of Rs. 3246/- from the tenant representing the difference in rent between the old rate and the new rate of Rs. 650/- and Rs. 920-8 as per month, respectively, for the period from August 1949 to July 1950. The tenant made an application purporting to be under Section 7, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller who directed the landlord to refund the amount within the period of one month from the date of his order. The appeal having been dismissed by the Judge the landlord moved this Court under Section 32(4) of the aforesaid Act and obtained this Rule.

2. It is obvious that as the provisions of Section 3 which made any amount in excess of the standard rent of any premises irrecoverable notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary are not applicable to the present case in view of the proviso to the section, there can be no case of a refund under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. The question however remains whether such a refund can be ordered under the provisions of Section 144, Civil P. C. The terms of Section 144 only apply to Courts. It provides :

'When a decree is varied or reversed, the Court of first instance shall, on the application of any party entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as may be, place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for such decree or such part thereof as has been varied or reversed.'

There can be no doubt that if the Rent Controller's Court had been a Court within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 144 would clearly apply. It has been held however that the Rent Controller is not a Court within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code. Even so we think it manifestly just and proper that the provisions of restitution that are incorporated in Section 144 should apply to the Rent Controller.

3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order by which the Court of appeal set aside the Additional Rent Controller's order of fixation of standard rent was itself without jurisdiction. We do not think it open for us to consider that matter now as the landlord did not move this Court in revision against that order, and there is nothing on the face of the record to show that the order was without jurisdiction. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order that has been passed.

4. The Rule is accordingly discharged. There will be no order as to costs as there is no appearance for the opposite party.

Lahiri, J.

5. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //