M/S. A. C. ESTATES versus M/S. SERAJUDDIN & CO. AND ANOTIIER

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 07-05-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
M/S. A. C. ESTATES 
v. 
M/S. SERAJUDDIN & CO. AND ANOTIIER 
May 7, 1965 
235 
[K. N. WANCIIOO, J. C. SHAH AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.] 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (12 of 1956), s. 16(3)-Scope of. 
The appellant, the owner of certain premises in Calcutta, leased them 
out and the respondent was inducted as a sub-tenant by the tenant in 
June, 1954.. In July. 1954, the appellant issued notice to the tenant 
determining the tenancy from the end of August 1954. In September 
1954, the appellant filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant. While the 
suit was pending, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, 
came into force on 31st March 1956, The respondent filed a petition 
under •· 16(3) of the Act, praying that the Controller may declare that 
tho interest of the tenant had ceased, that the respondent had become a 
direct tenant under the appellant and for fixation of the rent On 9th 
August 1956, the Controller made an order declaring the respondent as 
a direct tenant and adjourned the proceedings for evidence regarding the 
rent payable. On 22nd August 1956, the ejectment suit was decreed and 
so, the appellant applied to the Controller praying that the respondent's 
petition under s. 16(3) may be dismissed. The Controller dismissed tho 
respondent's application on the day fixed for determining the rent. The 
respondent's appeal to the Court of Small Causes was allowed. The ap· 
pellant then filed a petition under Art. • 227 of the Constitution to the 
Hlgti Court, and it was dismissed except as to fixation of rent. 
In hi• appeal to this Court, lhe appellant contended that : (i) the 
order of 9th August 1956 was not a final order and therefore the Controller 
could rescind it, and (ii) the rei;pondent was nQt 
entitled 
to invoke 
s. 16(3), because the tenant had beetn ejected on 22nd August 1956. 
HELD : (i) The High Court was right in holding that the Controller 
had no power to set aside tho order that had been made on 9th August 
1956, for it was right when it was made. [242 C-D] 
The word "tenant" is defined in s. 2(h) of the Act to include any per-
wn continuing in poosession after the termination of his tenancy, but 
shall not include any person against whom any decree or order 
for 
eviction had been made by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is 
nothing repugnant in the subject or context of s. 16(3) to take the view 
that the definition of "tenant" in s. 2(h) would not apply to a case under 
s. 16 ( 3) . Therefore, the tenant continued to be a tenant up to 22nd 
August 1956, and the respondent, who became a sub-tenant in June 1954, 
continued ,to be sub-tenant after the coming into force of the Act. [240 
E-G] 
Under the first part of s. 16(3), the Controller has to declare by 
order that the tenant's interest in the premises sub-let has ceased and that 
the sub-tenant has become a direct tenant under the landlord; and under 
H 
the second part, the Contr01ler has to fix the rents payable to the land· 
lord, by the tenant and the sub-tenant. [240 H-241 BJ 
In the instant case after having made such a declaration under the 
first part of the section, in favour of the respondent, it was not open 
LSSup./65-16 
236 
SUPRl!MI! COURT RP.PORTS 
[1966] l S.C.R 
to tho Controller (while proceeding to fix rent under the second part) 
A 
to rescind the order which bad become final so far as the Controller was 
concerned, on some ground which supervened 
after the date of 
the 
order nor can the Controller's latter order be justified under s. 29(5) of 
the Act, which gives the Controller the powers under ss. 151 and 152 
and the power of review under 0.47, of the Civil 
Procedure Code. 
[241 G-H; 242 B-CJ 
(ii) There is nothing in the contention of the appellant thats. 16(3) 
would not apply to the respondent. (242 El 
In the present case, the benefit of th.<; section was given to the res-
pondent not after 22nd August 1956, when the tenant was evicted, but 
before that date, that is, on 9th August 1956. That order so far as 
it 
went was final and was not open to review or cancellation by lhe Con .. 
troller who had thereafter only to flX the rent under the second part of 
the oection. [242 E-Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE Jt:RJSDICTIOl'i : Civil Appeal No. 258 of 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
May 6, 1960 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. 3579 
of 1959. 
S. C. Mawmdar, for the appellant. 
D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent No. I. 
The Judg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.