- (1.) These two Rules arise out of one judgment passed in appeal by the 9th Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. It appears that the sole opposite party of these two cases filed an application each for standardization of rent in respect of the premises in his occupation. These two applications were dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller and in two appeals preferred by the Landlord; the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the order of the Rent Controller and remanded the cases to him for fresh decision in accordance with some observations made by him. The landlord-Petitioner obtained the present Rules against the appellate order.
(2.) From the records of the learned Additional Rent Controller it would appear that the sole opposite party of each of these two cases occupies a portion of premises No. 18B, Bhabananda Road as a tenant under P.C. Roy Choudhury, the landlord Petitioner. The contractual rent of opposite party Satya Brata Roy Choudhury is Rs. 451 per month and the contractual rent of Pramatha Nath Ghatak, the tenant in the other case, is Rs. 60 per month. The contention of the tenants before the learned Additional Rent Controller was that the contractual rent in each of these two cases is too high and exorbitant and the Rent Controller was asked to determine the standard rent of these two premises at a rate which should be fair and reasonable. Apparently both the applications were treated as being governed by Section 9(1)(g) of the "West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. As no other provisions of this Act for fixing the standard rent apply to these premises the learned Additional Rent Controller attempted to determine the standard rent at a rate which should be considered to be fair and reasonable. It appears on an examination of the records of the Additional Rent Controller that evidence of two kinds was adduced on behalf of the tenants for the purpose of determination of fair and reasonable rent. One kind of evidence related to the costs of construction of the disputed premises and another kind of evidence related to the rent of some premises in the locality having similar advantages and amenities. For the purpose of determination of the costs of construction of the premises the services of an Inspector were requisitioned by the learned Additional Rent Controller. The Inspector inspected the premises and submitted, a report after recording some evidence. The costs of construction were estimated by the Inspector at a sum of Rs. 14,764 allowing contingency at 10 per cent. The report was rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller on the ground that it was incomplete and the Inspector had not estimated the costs in respect of some items of construction. As the costs of construction of the building could not be properly estimated, the learned Additional Rent Controller thought that it would be needless for him to go into the evidence which had been adduced by the tenants to show the prevailing rent of similar premises in the locality possessing similar advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately he was of opinion that the tenants had failed to make out any case under Section 9(1)(g) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, and so he dismissed the applications. Against that dismissal the tenants moved the appellate court and the appellate court remanded the applications to the learned Additional Rent Controller for fresh, trial in accordance with some observations made by him. The order of the appellate court has been challenged in the present proceedings in High Court.
(3.) Mr. Roy Choudhury appearing on behalf of the Landlord-Petitioner in these two cases drew my attention to certain portions of the order of the appellate court. The order of the appellate court is inordinately long. I have gone through the whole of this order and there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that the order is so very diffuse and complex and it contains so many illegal observations that it would not be proper to ask the learned Additional Rent Controller to dispose of the applications of the tenants in accordance with the observations made by the appellate court. Suffice it to say that the order of the appellate court cannot stand and it must be set aside.;