Ganendra Narayan Ray, J. - (1.) In this Rule, an order dated May 31, 1982 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 204 of 1981 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Burdwan in affirming the order passed by the Rent Controller in H.R.C. (Misc. Case) 15/79 is under challenge. It appears that the petitioners made an application under Section 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act before the said Rent Controller, Burdwan for necessary direction for repair of the disputed premises on the allegation that the said applicants were tenants and the premises required repairing by the landlord opposite parties. It is alleged by the case that the predecessor in-interest of the applicant Madhusudan Roy was a tenant and after the death of the said Madhusudan Roy, the applicants being the legal representatives have become the tenants and at the time of making construction about the disputed premises, serious cracks appeared which required immediate repairing. The landlord opposite parties agreed to effect repairs and had, in fact, started such repairing work but abandoned such repairing and despite request, the same could not be effected. The opposite parties however, disputed the contention of the applicants and it was contended by the opposite parties that Madhusudan Roy was a tenant under the opposite parties but he had voluntarily surrendered the tenancy on condition, of getting remission of arrears of rent and thereafter he had left the premises. The landlords thereafter, had been in occupation of the disputed premises and after that they had effected substantial repair work and made construction to their liking. It was therefore, contended that the applicants had no locus standi to make the said application under Section 34 of the Act and in any event, no repair work was necessary in respect of the disputed premises.
(2.) It appears that the Rent Controller appointed one Mr. A.K.D.s the Enquiry Officer and the said officer inspected the premises and submitted a report to the effect that the applicants were not tenants under the opposite parties and their predecessor in-interest had surrendered the tenancy. He had also submitted that the premises in question did not require any repairing work. The said report was accepted by the Rent Controller and the application was dismissed, with costs hearing fee being assessed at Rs. 15/-.
(3.) Against the said order, the applicants preferred the Misc. Appeal No. 204 of 1981 and by the impugned order dated May 31, 1982, the said appeal was dismissed.;