Anil K. Sen, J. - (1.) An order dt. Aug. 8, 1983, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Barrackpore in Rent Control Case No. 60 of 1982 is the subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application preferred by the landlord. The proceeding before the Rent Controller is a proceeding for fixation of fair rent under the provision of Section 8 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By the order impugned, the Rent Controller had decided a preliminary point with regard to the maintainability of the proceeding in favour of the tenant. The objection as to maintainability was raised by the landlord under the following circumstances.
(2.) It is not in dispute that the tenant opposite party came to occupy the ground floor of premises No. 78, Municipal Office Lane, under the landlord in terms of a tenancy agreement dt. 23-1-1981. The monthly rent initially payable under the agreement was Rs. 480/-but the agreement provided for periodical increase in rent. On 23-10-1982, the landlord served a notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act, purporting to terminate the tenancy in favour of the tenant as according to the landlord the tenant was in default in payment of rent. Shortly after the service of such notice, the tenant initiated the aforesaid rent fixation proceeding before the Rent Controller by filing an application under Section 10 read with Section 8 of the said Act. The landlord on his part filed a suit for ejectment as against the tenant, being Title Suit No. 3 of 1983. In the background of the aforesaid circumstances, the landlord raised an objection before the Rent Controller that the proceeding for fixation of fair rent at the instance of the tenant is not maintainable because the tenancy in his favour had already been determined by a valid notice to quit dt. 23-10-1982, followed by a suit for his eviction which is now pending. This objection has been overruled by the Rent Controller on the view that the tenant continues to remain a tenant enlitled to have the real payable by him determined under the provision of Section 8 of the said Act, notwithstanding the fact that the contractual tenancy had been determined by a notice to quit. Correctness of the view taken by the Rent Controller is being challenged before us in the present revisional application.
(3.) Mr. Sengupta appearing in support of the present revisional application has strongly relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sudhir v. Ashutosh in support of his contention that a proceeding for fixation of fair rent is not maintainable at the instance of a tenant whose tenancy has been determined and against whom a suit for eviction is pending, No doubt the decision relied on by Mr. Sengupta fully supports him on the point.;