9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (2) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention only a few material facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposing of the point which has been raised. It appears that certain agreements were reached between the parties in the years 1951-52 for leasing out the premises in question. In 1954 suits for specific performance were filed by the appellant against the respondent for enforcing the agreements relating to the leases. In March 1955 three applications were filed for fixing of standard rent by the respondent. These applications were preferred under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950. By an order dated December 5, 1955 the Rent Controller acting under Section 9(1)(e) of the said Act fixed the standard rent at figures much less than the agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing. But under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 1956 which repealed the earlier Act the basis of fixing a fair rent was quite different. It was to be reasonable rent based on the prevailing rents in the locality of similar or nearly similar premises. The appellant claims that if the fair rent had been fixed under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 1956 it would have approximately been the same as the contractual rent, whereas under the Act of 1950 it is extremely low. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate judge of the Court of Small Causes an application had been filed by the appellant under Section 113 read with Order 46 of the CPC in which it had been stated that a question of law arose whether the provision made in the Act of 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby declared that notwithstanding any decision of any court to the contrary, any proceeding pending on the 31st day of March, 1956 which was continued after that date and any decree passed or order made after that date in accordance with the provisions of the said Act in any such proceeding shall be deemed to have been validly continued, passed or made, as if the said Act had been in force and had not been repealed or had not expired, and no such proceeding, decree or order shall be called in question in any manner merely on the ground that the said Act was not in force when such proceeding was continued, decree was passed or order was made. Section 8 of the 1956 Act gave the meaning of "fair rent". Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a taxing provision could not be raised before the income tax authorities and therefore neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court could go into those matters in a revision or reference from the decision of those authorities. See K.S. Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras [1966]60ITR112(SC) , Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Straw Products Ltd., Bhopal [1966]60ITR156(SC) , and C.T. Senthilnathan Chettiar v. State of Madras [1968]67ITR102(SC) . Although these decisions were given in provisions relating to taxing statutes we are of the opinion that the same rule would be applicable to a case of the present nature. In other words it can well be said that the question of ultra vires was wholly foreign to the scope and the jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
