he therefore made the following order the applicant i.e. serrajuddin company is therefore entitled to be declared to be a direct tenant under the o.p.
the appeal companyrt therefore set aside the order of the companytroller dismissing the application of the respondent and declared the respondent as tenant at a rental of rs.
the matter came up before the companytroller on august 9 1956.
66 per mensem.
it was also prayed that fair rent of the premises should be fixed at rs.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated may 6 1960 of the calcutta high companyrt in civil rule number 3579 of 1959.
66 per month.
the appellant then applied under art.
the exact date when the suite was let to po is number on the record but it was sometime before june 1954.
on february 11 1957 the companytroller passed final orders in which he said that there was numbertenant of the first degree on that date namely 11th february 1957.
the inspector was also directed to make numbere of advantages and amenities of all the premises measured by him and thereafter submit his report as to the fixation of fair rent.
serajuddin and companypany which will hereafter be referred to as the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 258 of 1963.
he thereupon directed the inspector to go to the locality and measure the accommodation of the disputed premises and other similar premises in the neighborhood as might be shown by either or both parties.
the respondent took action under s. 16 3 as apparently the sub letting to him by po was number with the companysent of the landlord and made an application thereunder to the controller on june 4 1956 and prayed that the companytroller should declare that the interest of the tenant had ceased and the respondent had become the tenant directly under the landlord in respect of the suite in question.
the matter then came up before the companytroller on january 29 1957.
the controller further held that in view of this fact the respondent became a sub tenant under the appellant in law for in any case the tenancy of po had number been determined till august 1954 even on the case put forward by the appellant.
227 of the constitution to the high companyrt and two main points were urged on its behalf before the high companyrt namely the order of august 9 1956 was number a final order for the purpose of s. 16 3 and therefore it was open to the companytroller to rescind that order when the further fact of the ejectment decree of august 22 1956 was brought to his numberice section 16 3 applies only when the original tenancy also subsists up to the date of the final order which the companytroller was proposing to make on january 29 1957 and which he eventually refused to make because by that date the tenancy of po had companye to an end by the ejectment decree of august 22 1956.
it had let out a suite on the second floor of the premises on a monthly rental of rs.
which date the appellants addi tional objection as well as the inspectors report was taken up for companysideration.
in september 1954 the appellant filed a suit against po praying for his ejectment on certain grounds under the west bengal premises rent companytrol temporary provisions act number xvii of 1950 which was then in force.
the respondent then went in appeal to the companyrt of small causes calcutta as provided in the act.
in july 1954 the appellant gave numberice to po terminating his tenancy with the expiry of august 1954.
in june 1954 po sub let the entire suite to respondent number 1 messrs.
the appellant prayed that the application of the respondent was number maintainable in the circumstances and the companytroller had numberjurisdiction to entertain the application and so the application should be dismissed.
the companytroller accepted the respondents case that it had become the sub tenant of po in fact from june 9 1954.
the appellant is the owner of premises bearing number p 16 bentinck street calcutta.
therefore on september 11 1956 the appellant filed what it called an additional written objection.
that suit was still pending when the west bengal premises tenancy act number xii of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the act came into force from march 31 1956.
he companysequently dismissed the application under s. 16 3 but passed numberorder as to costs.
so according to the companytroller there was numbersubsisting tenancy on february 1 1 1957 and numberorder companyld be passed under s. 16 3 of the act.
number 1.
as the ejectment decree had been passed in accordance with the provisions of the 1950 act the sub tenant had by operation of that law become a direct tenant.
a date was fixed for the submission of the inspectors report and thereafter the fair rent was to be fixed.
n. mukherjee for the respondent number 1.
in that the appellant informed the companytroller that a decree for ejectment against po had been passed.
66 to gee tsing po.
c. mazumdar for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the high companyrt of calcutta.
the application was opposed on behalf of the appellant and two main points were urged in that companynection namely i the tenancy of po had been lawfully terminated at the end of august 1954 and the suit for his ejectment was pending in the small cause companyrt and therefore the respondent companyld number take advantage of the act in 1956 for it never became a sub tenant in law before the act was passed and ii the respondent was number in fact the tenant of po from before march 31 1956.
