Grover:J. - (1.) These appeals have been brought by certificate from a common judgment of the Calcutta High Court arising out of fixation of standard rent relating to the following three premises in a building in Bentinck Street, Calcutta, known as the A. C. Mansions 1. Block A, B and C on the first floor. . 2. Suite nos. 14 and 16 on the fifth floor. 3. Suite No. 12 on the fifth floor.
(2.) It is not necessary to state the details except to mention only a few material facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposing of the point which has been raised. It appears that certain agreements were reached between the parties in the years 1951-52 for leasing out the premises in question. In 1954 suits for specific performance were filed by the appellant against the respondent for enforcing the agreements relating to the leases. In March 1955 three applications were filed for fixing of standard rent by the respondent. These applications were preferred under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950. By an order dated December 5, 1955 the Rent Controller acting under S. 9 (1) (e) of the said Act fixed the standard rent at figures much less than the agreed amounts in all the three cases. An appeal was taken to the Court of Small Causes by the appellant. The appellate judge dismissed the appeal relating to Block A, B and C and suite No. 12 but with respect to suit nos. 14 and 16 he partly allowed the appeal by slightly increasing the standard rent. He dismissed cross appeals filed by the respondent. Thereafter both the appellant and the respondent moved the High Court and obtained rules. The High Court by its judgment dated March 7, 1957 remanded the cases to the appellate judge for fresh consideration in accordance with the directions given by it. After recording further evidence the appellate judge dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the rents fixed by the Rent Controller. The appellant then moved the High Court under S. 32 (4) of the 1950 Act and obtained three rules. By a common judgment dated July 24, 1961 the High Court made certain increases in the rents in respect of Block A, B. and C and suites, 14 and 16 but declined to interfere in respect of the rent fixed for suite no. 12.
(3.) Now when the proceedings were pending before the Court of Small Causes the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 came into force on March 31, 1956. According to the appellant, under S. 19 (1) (e) of the 1950 Act the basis for fixing the standard rent was the "basic rent", i.e., the rent payable for the premises if let on December 1, 1941 plus an addition upto 10% for residential letting and upto 15% for non-residential letting. But under S. 8 (1) (e) of the Act of 1956 which repealed the earlier Act the basis of fixing a fair rent was quite different. It was to be reasonable rent based on the prevailing rents in the locality of similar or nearly similar premises. The appellant claims that if the fair rent had been fixed under S. 8 (1) (e) of the Act of 1956 it would have approximately been the same as the contractual rent, whereas under the Act of 1950 it is extremely low. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate judge of the Court of Small Causes an application had been filed by the appellant under Section 113 read with Order 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which it had been stated that a question of law arose whether the provision made in the Act of 1956 that the proceedings which had been instituted under the Act of 1950 were to be continued under that Act were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was prayed that a reference is made of that question to the High Court but that prayer was declined by the appellate judge. The appellant then moved the High Court under Art. 228 of the Constitution but on December 21, 1959 that application was dismissed summarily. This question was again sought to be raised before the High Court when the revision cases were finally heard. But the High Court declined to go into the matter observing that it was no longer open after the rejection of the appellant's application under Art. 228 of the Constitution as mentioned earlier.;