V.K.Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is against judgment dated 24th April '98 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in Matter No. 2585 of 1986. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the respondent Mrityunjay Basu being the Receiver of the property at 10, Belvedere Road, Alipore, Calcutta-27 filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the appellant Damodar Valley Corporation and others with regard to the enhancement of the rent for the period 1983 to 1997 on the ground that the lease held by the appellant in respect of the property in question had expired on 30th November, 1983 and that thereafter the appellant was liable to pay rent at increased rate till the date of the vacation of the property by the appellant (October-1996 partly; and March 1997 fully). Following reliefs were claimed in the writ application by the writ petitioner : "(a)a declaration that the Respondent No.1, the Damodar Valley Corporation is bound by the principle of Promissory Estoppel to renew the Agreement dt. 30.11.1977 in terms of their letter dt. 16.9.1983 (Annexure 'C') with effect from 1st December, 1983 as per terms and conditions detailed in annexure 'E', (b) a writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1, the Damodar Valley Corporation to execute the renewal of Agreement with the petitioner as in respect of the premises in question mentioned in paragraph 10, as per their option (annexure 'C') with effect from 1.12.83 as per terms and conditions detailed in annexure 'E', and read with paragraph 23 of this petition, (c) an order directing the Respondent No. 1, the Damodar Valley Corporation, to make payment to the petitioner-Receiver, the amount on calculation as detailed in paragraph 23 of this petition on the basis therein mentioned within seven days from the date of order, and to go on paying the usual occupation and other of charges, as mentioned in paragraph 23 of this petition. (d) rule Nisi in terms of prayer (a) and (b), (e) Interim order in terms of prayer (c), (f) any other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper, (g) Cost." (At a later stage the writ petitioner made certain amendments in respect of one of the aforesaid reliefs but substantially and primarily the nature of the reliefs did not undergo any change).
(2.) The appellant was the tenant of the landlords in respect of the property in question. The original Lease Deed as executed in 1977 had fixed rent at the rate of Rs. 2.30 per Sft. of the covered area. At the expiry of the Original Lease period some correspondent was exchanged between the tenant and the landlords and/or Receiver regarding the renewal of the Lease Deed for a further period on agreed terms and conditions. It was in the course of this correspondence that the writ petitioner suggested enhancement of the rent from Rs. 2.30 per Sft. to Rs. 8.40 per Sft. per month. Such enhancement proposal was contained in the letter dated 1st October 1983 sent by the writ petitioner to Respondent No. 1. It also appears that ultimately the appellant did not agree with any proposal for any enhancement of the rent and took a stand that the appellant was protected under law as a tenant to occupy the premises at the same terms and conditions as were originally agreed between the parties in the Lease Deed as executed in 1977, including the terms and conditions relating to the payment of the monthly rent @ Rs. 2.30 per Sft. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner as noticed above, came up to this court by filing writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. On 23rd June 1992 and order was passed by the learned single Judge whereby Rent Controller having territorial jurisdiction over the property in question was directed to fix the rent of the said premises being totally uninfluenced by the provisions of the Statute. It was also recorded in that order that the parties had agreed to abide by the decision of the Rent Controller regarding the assessment of the rent. This order forming the starting point of the developments leading to the filing of the present appeal, being very relevant may be re-produced as under :- "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 this 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 reported 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. Sd/-Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J."
(3.) The appellants, aggrieved of the aforesaid order filed Appeal No. 568 of 1992 and the Division Bench of this court vide Judgment dated 8th December 1994 set aside the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge by making the following observations and issuing hereinbelow directions : "In that view of the matter, even assuming that the order impugned was passed by consent but the said order cannot be allowed to stand as the consent order on the face of it purports to direct the Rent Controller to act contrary to and/or inconsistent with and/or de hors the statute in question under which he has been created. The Controller being a creature of the statute cannot be called upon to discharge a function de hors the statute. This is contrary to legal principle. Accordingly, the order dated 23.6.92 cannot be allowed to stand. In that view of the matter, the order dated 23.6.92 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Judge for a fresh determination in accordance with law. The appeal is thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.";