Chunder, J.@mdashThese two Rules were issued at the instance of a landlord in connection with two rent fixation cases. The landlord holds under
another person and he is in reality a tenant of the first degree He holds two premises under his landlord, viz., one shop-room which is the subject
matter of Case No 170|52 and he has three rooms in Case No. 169B|52. He let out the entire premises, that is one shop-room in Case No.
170B|52, and let out only a part, that is one shop-room out of three rooms, in Case No. 169B|52, to his tenant, that is the sub-tenant of the
landlord. It must be pointed out that as between him and the landlord the rent has not yet been standardised for either of the premises and it is
desirable in a case of this nature that the fixation of rent should be in the presence of the superior landlord if possible, so that there may be no
multiplicity of proceedings later on and no injustice. Therefore, when the cases go back to the Rent Controller, he will see to making the superior
landlord also a party to the proceedings and having the rent of the tenant of the first degree and the sub-tenant fixed in his presence.
2. In the present case, the Rent Controller fixed the rent on wholly inadmissible evidence, namely, the facts mentioned in a judgment not inter
parties and what is mentioned in the Assessment Register of the Municipality which is at best hearsay evidence. It has already been pointed out
rightly by this Court that these are not properly admissible evidence. On the basis of these materials he fixed first the rent in Case No. 170B|52,
whilst on that basis of that rent again he fixed the rent in Case No 169B|52.
3. The Appellate Court accepted what was done by the Rent Controller as correct and upheld the order in both the cases.
4. As the Rent Controller proceeded upon inadmissible materials the decision in both the cases must be set aside and the cases remanded to him
for fixing fresh rent on, if necessary, taking further evidence from parties and making also the superior landlord a party to the proceedings. The
result in the present cases had been that the tenant of the first degree had remained liable to pay a higher rent to his landlord than he would get from
his sub-tenant for both the premises. Both the Rules are made absolute and cases are sent back to the Rent Controller for further proceedings in
the light of this judgment Costs will abide by the result