Sumanta Lal Shaw vs Kalidas Mukhrjee and Others

Guha Ray, J.—These two Rules arise out of an order by the appellate court directing the analogous hearing of two proceedings u/s 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. This order was made in connection: with two applications by the same landlord against two sets of tenants who were in occupation of two different holdings. In both these proceedings there are precisely similar question to be decided, namely, the question of default of the tenants and the question whether the notice was properly served and if so, whether it was valid. In addition, there are ether questions which are not common to both the applications and which arise in the one or the other. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that there is no provision in the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act for consolidation of proceedings, but Rule 4(3) of the Rules framed u/s 34 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act provides that in making enquiries u/s 5, the Controller shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, for the trial of suits. In the CPC there is actually no provision for consolidation of proceedings but proceedings are consolidated u/s 151 of the CPC in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and it has been held in a number of cases, one of which is relied on behalf of the petitioners, namely, Kali Charan Dutt and others v. Surja Kumar Mondal and others, 17 C.W.N. 526. that an order for consolidation of several suits can be made in a proper case in the exercise of the Court''s inherent power and that the court will not consolidate several actions brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants unless the issues to be tried are precisely the same, though the order for consolidation in such a case may be made by consent of the parties. In these two proceedings some common questions do arise, as already pointed out. There was, therefore, nothing wrong with the direction of the learned Judge that the two applications should be consolidated and heard together. The petitions must accordingly be dismissed and the Rules discharged with costs.