- (1.) IN our opinion, this Rule should fail. The Rule is directed against an order of the appellate authority, remanding an application under Section 10 (3) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956, to the Rent Controller for consideration on the merits. The application was thrown out by the learned Rent Controller on two preliminary grounds, neither of which appeared to be of substance to the learned appellate authority.
(2.) FOR an appreciation of the points involved, it is necessary to set out the facts as follows: opposite Party No. 2, Rai saheb P. C. Roy, is the owner of premises No. 6, Tiljala Road, comprising land with structures. In 1945, the said premises was let out to the petitioner at a monthly rental of Rs. 520/- (Rupees five hundred and twenty) per month. In 1950, the said premises along with certain machineries, fixtures, fittings, furniture, etc. , were let out by the petitioner to the opposite party No. 1 at a consolidated rental of Rs. 1650/-, which was eventually reduced to Rs. 1050/- per month.
(3.) IN November, 1956, the opposite party No. 1 applied for an order under Sec. 16 (3) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, 'declaring that the petitioner's interest in the disputed premises shall cease and the said opposite party No. 1 shall become a direct tenant under opposite party No. 2 in respect of the aforesaid premises. The application was made after service of notice under Sec. 16 (2) of the Act upon the landlord opposite party No. 2. The petitioner opposed the said application, contending inter alia that the application was not maintainable in law, inasmuch as what was let out by him to opposite party No. 1 was not only the premises, taken lease of by him from opposite party No. 2 but also additional structures, constructed by him, and fixtures, fittings, furniture etc. , which together constituted a factory, to wit, a different premises, and secondly, because the notice under Sec. 16 (2) was defective in law. The learned Rent controller gave effect to both the above objections and dismissed the application. On appeal, however, the said decision was reversed and both the above grounds of objection were over-ruled by the learned Appellate Judge and the case was remanded to the learned Rent controller to be dealt with on the merits in accordance with law. It is against this appellate order that the present Rule has been obtained by the petitioner.;