Purushottam Chatterjee, J. - (1.) This petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of a suit which was filed as early as March 21, 1956, for ejectment of the, Defendant from the suit, premises. At that time West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1950 was in force. Subsequently while the suit was pending in the trial Court, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, came into force. The latter Act gave a right to a sub -tenant who was introduced by the tenant without the consent of the landlord to make an application under Sec. 16(3) to be upgraded as a tenant. The Plaintiff who filed the suit was not the owner and the superior landlord. The Plaintiff was and still claims to be a tenant of the first degree. The Defendant was the sub -tenant but does not admit to be a sub -tenant now.
(2.) A proceeding was later started under Sec. 16(3) by the Defendant to up -grade himself into a tenant. That application finally was allowed on. February 23, 1957, and the Rent Controller decided that the Defendant would become a direct tenant of the superior landlord under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956. Thereafter the Plaintiff who was the tenant and -still claims to be the tenant notwithstanding the order under Sec. 16(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, applied for striking out the defence under Sec. 14(4) of the Rent Control Act, 1950. By an order of this Court in Civil Revision Gases Nos. 2741 of 1962 and 3142 of 1962, P.B. Mukharji, J. by consent of the parties directed as follows: the order of the Rent Controller and the orders of the appellate officer dated June 14, 1962 and July 14, 1962, passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 44 of 1957 of the 8th Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, will be considered as evidence in Title suit No. 188 of 1956 of the 6th Court of the Munsiff at Alipore and the learned Munsiff will consider the effect of those decisions in the trial of the issues in the suit and the suit will be decided accordingly. The Court will decide which of the two proceedings or both namely the suit for ejectment and the Sec. 16(3) proceeding will be binding upon the parties, (b) The tenant Dilip Narayan Roy Choudhury will continue depositing rents with the Rent Controller at the rate fixed by the Appellate officer till the decision of the suit. Let the hearing of the suit be expedited. The trial Court is directed to hear the suit within March 1, 1965.
(3.) But the trial Court could not hear the suit either within March 1, 1965, or up till now. The matter came to this Court again on March 15, 1966, and I directed in Civil Revision Case No. 3863 of 1965 as follows: The learned Advocates for both sides have agreed that the issue as to whether there is a relationship of landlord, and tenant between the parties should be taken up along with the hearing of the petition under Sec. 14(4) of the West Bengal Rent Control Act, 1950. I, therefore, direct the Court to frame an issue as to whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, if not already framed, to determine that issue on such evidence as may be given by the parties and also to determine the petition under Sec. 14(4) of the Act on its own merits. I express no opinion over the merits of the matter or of the issue.;