9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Fixation of standard rent under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950. - Interpretation of Section 19(1)(e) of the 1950 Act and Section 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956. - Constitutional validity of provisions under the Act of 1956 for pending proceedings from the Act of 1950. - Applicability of the principle that authorities under a statute are not concerned with the validity of provisions. Analysis: The judgment involves appeals regarding the fixation of standard rent for premises in Calcutta, specifically A.C. Mansions. The dispute arose from agreements made in 1951-52 for leasing the premises, followed by applications for standard rent fixation in 1955 under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1950. The Rent Controller set rents lower than agreed amounts, leading to appeals and subsequent rulings by the appellate judge and the High Court. The appellant claimed that the Act of 1956, which repealed the 1950 Act, altered the basis for fixing fair rent from the "basic rent" to prevailing rents in the locality. The appellant questioned the Constitutional validity of continuing proceedings under the 1950 Act post the 1956 Act's enforcement, arguing a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment delves into the repeal of the 1950 Act by the 1956 Act and the provision for continuing pending proceedings under the former. Section 40(2)(a) of the 1956 Act allowed ongoing proceedings to continue as if the 1950 Act had not been repealed. The court highlighted the meaning of "fair rent" under the 1956 Act, emphasizing the rent fixed under the 1950 Act for pending proceedings. The appellant's argument centered on the Act of 1956 mandating rent fixation under the 1950 Act for ongoing cases, challenging the Constitutional validity of this provision. The judgment addresses the principle that authorities under a statute are not concerned with the validity of provisions, drawing parallels with taxing statutes. Citing precedents related to taxing statutes, the court held that authorities like Rent Controllers are not tasked with determining the Constitutional validity of statutory provisions. The court concluded that the question of ultra vires was beyond the scope of the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, and therefore, neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court could entertain such challenges in appeals or revisions arising from standard rent fixation. In conclusion, the appeals challenging the standard rent fixation under the 1950 Act were dismissed. The court declined to award costs, emphasizing that the authorities involved were not empowered to assess the Constitutional validity of statutory provisions, akin to precedents in taxing statutes.
|
