A.K.DUTTA, J. - (1.) THE Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court has been exercised by the Petitioner Sanat Kr. Dutta by filing the instant Revisional Application against the Order dated 11th May, 1990 passed by the Rent Controller, Bankura, in Misc. Case No. 4 of the 1988 before him, arising out of an application under Section 29-B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The matter has appeared before me, having been assigned by the Ld. Chief Justice by order dated 28.4.95.
(2.) AS the matter was taken up for hearing, a technical question arose as to whether a Revisional Application against an Order passed by a Rent Controller under Section 29-B of the aforesaid Act should be heard by a Division Bench or by a single Judge. The learned Advocate for the Opposite-Party sought to submit with reference to the Calcutta High Court Appellate Side Rules that such matter should be heard by a single Judge, and not by a Division Bench. But to that I would at once note with a minute of dissent that Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 1, Chapter II of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta Appellate Side, Part-1, as it now stands after the amendment reads as follows: "1. All appeals other than First Appeals, references or revisions in respect of the order or decrees of any subordinate Civil Court shall be heard by a Single Judge." An Order passed by a Rent Controller under Section 29-B of the aforesaid Act could not clearly be held to be an Order passed by a Subordinate Civil Court, as the Rent Controller cannot be deemed to be Subordinate Civil Court for the aforesaid purpose." Section 29-B of the said Act, which is embodied in Chapter VI-A thereof, came into operation in 1976. The said Section expressly takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court entertaining applications for recovery of possession by the class of landlords specified therein, and mandatorily, directs that such applications shall lie before the Rent Controller. Sub- section (8) of the said Section vests in the Rent Controller power to follow the procedures of a Court of Small Causes, while holding an enquiry in a proceeding to which said Chapter VI-A applies. Sub-section (9) bars an appeal or a Second Appeal against an order for recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller under the said Section. The proviso thereto vests power in High Court to satisfy itself about the legality of the order made by the Controller by reference to the records and pass necessary orders as this Court may think fit. Sub-section (10) of the said Section indicates that the power, which this Court is intended to exercise, as above, is Revisional power. It may be pertinent to note in this context that the Act has made certain provisions empowering the Rent Controller to fix fair rent under Section 8, increase fair rent under Section 9, penalise for disturbance of easements etc. under Section 31 and grant permission for repairs and for taking measures for the maintenance of essential services under Section 34 thereof. And, in terms of Section 29 of the Act the Orders passed by the Rent Controller thereunder have been made appealable to the specified Civil Court. The legislature intended to make a distinction to the order passed by the Controller under Section 29-B of the Act vis-a-vis the other types of order which the Controller can pass under the other provisions of the Act, as indicated above. The legislative intent is clear by conferment of specific power of Revision in terms of Section 29B (9) proviso, and barring of appeals and second appeals from orders under Sub-section 8 of the said Section. The fact that the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act have not been made applicable to the orders under Section 29B(8) of the above Act confirm the said legislative intent.
(3.) TAKING the above view, a Division Bench of this Court in re: Smt. Prabha Tankha, 1994(II) CHN 313 has held that Revisional Applications under Section 29-B(9) of the aforesaid Act have to be moved before a Division Bench. Sitting singly, as I do, I cannot certainly differ from the view so taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision. So long as the said decision stands such-like Revisional Applications against orders passed by a Rent Controller under Section 29-B of the Act could not be heard and dealt with by Single Judge. It may also be noted in this context that though the relevant rules of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta have since been amended no provision has yet been made therein regarding Revisional Applications against orders passed by a Rent Controller under Section 29-B(9) of the Act.;