G.N.Das, J. - (1.) These revision cases arise out of ten applications for revision of order made by Sri S. Sen Gupta, dated 25th November 1952. By the said order the applications filed by the petitioner for fixation of standard rent of the premises in respect of which they are tenants were dismissed as not being maintainable in law.
(2.) The petitioner in each of the cases is a sub-tenant under the opposite party Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. in respect of certain rooms in premises No. 138, Canning Street, Calcutta. The Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. took lease of the entire premises under a registered deed dated 22nd March 1949 for a term of fifty one years. The petitioners, who are tenants, as I have already stated, filed these applications for fixation of standard rent The landlord-opposite party also filed applications for fixation of standard rent. All these applications were heard by the Rent Controller and by his order dated 7th March 1950, the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent in each case. Against his decision both the tenant and the landlord preferred appeals before the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The Chief Judge transferred these appeals to the learned Judge, Fifth Bench of that Court. The learned Judge of the Fifth Bench varied the orders made by the Rent Controller. Against the order of the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, applications in revision were filed in this Court. This Court decided that the learned Judge, Fifth Bench had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals and on that ground the order made by the learned Judge, Fifth Bench was set aside and the cases were remitted to the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta for disposal by him. When these appeals were taken up for hearing by the learned Chief Judge he, after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, was of the opinion that the applications for fixation of standard rent were not maintainable. The learned Chief Judge was of the opinion that so far as the lease in favour of the landlord-opposite party is concerned, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act, 1950, the Act was inapplicable to that lease. The learned Chief Judge was further of the opinion that it would result in an anomaly if the provisions of the Rent Control Act are applied to a sub-lease granted by such landlord. He was also of the opinion that if an application for fixation of standard rent was maintainable at the instance of a lease from the opposite party it may work hard on the landlord-opposite party.
(3.) Against this order the tenants have moved this Court in revision. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the petitioners in support of these Revision Cases has submitted that the learned Chief Judge was in error in holding that the applications for standardisation of rent was not maintainable.;