- (1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 23.6.92 as well as the orders dated 15.7.92 and 20.7.92. The writ application was disposed, of by the learned Trial Judge by the order dated 23.6.92. The said order reads as follows : "By consent of the parties, there shall be an order to the following effect : The concerned Rent Controller having territorial jurisdiction over premises No. 10, Belvedere Road, Alipore, Calcutta-27 shall fix the rent of the said premises, being totally uninfluenced by the provisions of the statute. In order to determine the rent in terms of this order, the Rent Controller shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce documentary evidence, if any, before him. The Rent Controller shall also take into consideration the rent in the adjoining premises or premises in the vicinity for the purpose of assessment of rent. The rent so ascertained shall also include the service charge and the maintenance charges. The Municipal rates shall also have to be taken into account in the matter of fixation of such a rent. The parties, however, would be at liberty to make written submission before the Rent Controller. In the event the Rent Controller comes to a conclusion as to variations in the rate of rent for specified periods, it is desired that the Rent Controller should also indicate such a variation in the rate of rent in his report. Since the issue of determination of rent of the concerned premises is pending for quite some time, it is desired that the Rent Controller should deal with the matter and file his report before this court with utmost expedition and preferably within a period of five weeks from the date hereof. It is recorded that all the parties appearing today including Mr. Das's client, Mr. Mitra's client and Mr. Lahiri's client agree to abide by the decision of the Rent Controller regarding the assessment of rent. Let this, matter appear in the list six weeks hence marked 'for orders'. All parties including the concerned Rent Controller are to act on a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking."
(2.) Thereafter, an application was filed by the appellant alleging that the said order had not been passed by consent but in the order it has been wrongly recorded that the order was passed by consent and in connection with that order an application for stay was filed and by the order dated 20.7.92 the said application was disposed of by the following order : "Mr. N. C. Roy Choudhury with Mr. A. Lahiri appear and submits. Mr. Jayanta Mitra with Mr. D. P. Adhikari appear and submit. Mr. P. K. Das with Mr. Tilok Basu appear and submit. The Court : Affidavit-in-Reply is to be filed as prayed by Mr. Roy Choudhury by next Monday, let the matter appear on Tuesday next i.e. 28.7.92. "Stay of operation of the order dated 23.6.1992 prayed for but such prayer is refused. There will be no order of stay more so because of the reason that the order has been as consent order and all the parties were represented by lawyers and also with the respective clients representative at the time of passing such order."
(3.) It is not necessary for us to go into the facts in details. A writ application was filed by the Opposite Party Mrityunjoy Basu, who was a Receiver, in respect of the property praying for a declaration that the DVC was bound by the principle of promissory estoppel to renew the tenancy agreement and also to execute the renewal agreement with the writ petitioner as well as for a direction upon the appellant DVC to make payment rent on calculation as detailed in paragraph 23 of the writ petition. The said writ application was disposed of by the order dated 23.6.92 as stated above.;