Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) This Rule raises a point which was decided by S. R. Das Gupta J. and myself in the case of -- 'Khuda Bux v. Manager, Caledonian Press', but there has been a further argument before us which has enabled us to examine the matter afresh and look more closely into the relevant statutory provisions and authorities. I must, however, say at once that towards the end of the argument, we discovered a section in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which settles the controversy between the parties, but inasmuch as the point was argued at great length on general principles as well, we consider it right to record our opinion on that aspect of the matter also.
(2.) The facts are these: The petitioner holds a plot of land appertaining to Khatian No. 168 of mouza Dhakuria, situated in the suburbs of Calcutta. He holds it as a tenant under the opposite party. His case is that the land was originally let for agricultural purposes, but is now being used as a building site. Accordingly, on 18-9-1953, he made an application under Section 72, West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, for the conversion of the land into a tenancy to winch the provisions of the Aqt would apply. That application was dismissed by the Collector on the ground that the land concerned was situated within the limits of Calcutta which was excluded from the operation of the Act. On appeal, the Collector's decision was upheld by the Commissioner of the Presidency Division. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present rule.
(3.) On behalf of the petitioner two points were urged before us. It was contended that his appeal to the Commissioner should not have been dismissed summarily without giving him a hearing and that by such dismissal, the principles of natural justice had been violated. It was contended in the second place that the decision of the authorities below was also wrong on the merits, inasmuch as, in view of the definition of 'Calcutta' as contained in Section 1(9) (a) of the Act, it could not be said that the petitioner's land was situated in the excepted area.;