Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 234 (CAL)

Biswanath Deb v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-05-06

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2013
Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated April 24, 2013 is questioning a notice dated January 22, 2013 (WP p.29) issued by the Controller appointed under s.38 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The petitioner submitted an application dated January 9, 2013 (WP p.20) to the Controller under s.21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It was for permission to deposit rent and it was filed in Form 2 appended to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules, 1999. On receipt of the s.21 application the Controller issued the notice to the landlord named in the application. Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that since the Controller was not required to decide anything on the basis of the s.21 application, he could not issue the impugned notice to the landlord named in an application giving it an opportunity of hearing and contesting the application. Advocate for the State has submitted that the petitioner’s remedy, if any, was before the Tribunal established under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. To this advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the question of moving the Tribunal could arise only if the Controller had passed the final order in the s.21 application. Section 43 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 provides that an appeal shall lie from a final order of the Controller to the Tribunal as the State legislature may, by law, provide and that until the Tribunal is so provided, an appeal from the final order of the Controller shall lie to the High Court. By a notification dated August 3, 1998 the State Government established under s.4 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal with effect from August 3, 1998. By the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2002 cl.(r) of s.2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 was amended, and by the amendment sub-cl.(vi) was added to cl.(r). In cl.(r) the expression “specified Act” has been defined to mean the several Acts mentioned therein, and by the 2002 Amendment the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was added to the list of the existing Acts. In cl.(r) the expression “specified Act” has been defined to mean the several Acts mentioned therein, and by the 2002 Amendment the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was added to the list of the existing Acts. In view of the provisions of ss.6 and 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, no Court other than the Tribunal established under s.4 of the Act has any jurisdiction, power and authority to entertain any case, as the Court of first instance, against any order made by an authority under a specified Act, or against any action taken by any authority under a specified Act, or to entertain any application concerning matters under any provision of a specified Act. In view of this situation, I am unable to accept the argument that since s.43 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Tribunal only against a final order of the Controller, against the notice issued by the Controller the petitioner was not required to go to the Tribunal. In view of the overriding effect of the provisions of s.8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 read with the provisions of ss.6 and 10 of the Act, in my opinion, there can be no doubt that it is not only against a final order of the Controller under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, but against any order and any action, that one can and must go to the Tribunal. Therefore, the WP is not maintainable. For these reasons, I dismiss the W P. Nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from approaching the Tribunal. No costs.