Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1101 (CAL)

Chittaranjan Chowdhury v. Dilip Kumar Ghosh

2011-08-16

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2011
Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This revisional application is directed against the order dated March 10, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 7th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.56 of 2005 and Title Suit No.114 of 2005. The mater relates to a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. The landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground of, inter alia, default etc. against the tenant being the Title Suit No.114 of 2005 and the tenant filed a suit being the Title Suit No.56 of 2005 for declaration of his tenancy, right and other reliefs. The two sits are being tried analogously. The tenant filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and the landlord filed a written objection against that application. The said application under Section 7(2) was disposed of by the impugned order directing the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/-as arrears of rent including interest by four equal instalments. Being aggrieved by such order, the tenant has filed this revisional application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order is should be sustained. Upon hearing the submission of the learned advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record I am of the view that the impugned order should be sustained. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions over the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. Upon analysis of evidence on record, I find that the learned Trial Judge had concluded that the tenant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as arrears of rent including interest and he disposed of the application accordingly. The tenant has contended that he is not a defaulter at all. He paid rent to the landlord and sometimes to his wife. But no rent receipt was granted. He has also contended that the electricity to his tenanted premises had been cut off by the C.E.S.C. and the landlord did not provide for electricity in his tenanted premises and for that reason, he has prayed for suspension of rent. He has also contended that the landlord took some loan from one Himadri Sarker to the tune of Rs.6500/-and he paid that amount and so, he is entitled to get an adjustment of the repayment of the loan by him on behalf of the landlord. He has also contended that the landlord took some loan from one Himadri Sarker to the tune of Rs.6500/-and he paid that amount and so, he is entitled to get an adjustment of the repayment of the loan by him on behalf of the landlord. So far as suspension of rent is concerned, the learned Trial Judge, upon analysis of the evidence on record has concluded that the supply of electricity had been disconnected by the C.E.S.C. because of non-payment of the electric charges. Admittedly, the tenant was getting electricity from the meter standing in the name of the landlord and such electric connection had been disconnected because of non-payment of the dues. When such a situation arose, the tenant had the opportunity to get electricity directly from the C.E.S.C. and for that reason, he is not entitled to get any suspension of payment of rent because it is also a source of income of landlord as per evidence on record. So far as repayment of loan on behalf of the landlord by the tenant to one Himadri Sarker is concerned, I find from the materials on record that Himadri Sarker is not a tenant at all under the same landlord. There is no proof that the tenant had repaid the loan on behalf of the landlord at the behest of the landlord. So, such contention of the tenant has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge. So far as the quantum of rent, I find that from the evidence on record, it has been duly proved that the rent for the premises in suit is at the rate of Rs.300/- per month payable according to the Bengali Calendar Month. Though, the defendant has claimed that he had paid all the dues relating to rent to the landlord and that the landlord did not grant any rent receipt, I hold, such contention is not believable. The landlord in his deposition has clearly stated that whenever the tenant paid rent, he granted receipt and this continued up to Chaitra 1408 B.S. The landlord has also stated that he granted ‘No Objection’ to the appropriate authority for running the business by the defendant. So, such conduct of the landlord shows that he was not hostile to the tenant at all. So, the contention that the landlord did not grant receipt in spite of payment cannot be believed. So, such conduct of the landlord shows that he was not hostile to the tenant at all. So, the contention that the landlord did not grant receipt in spite of payment cannot be believed. Moreover, the tenant did not take any step for not granting any receipt in spite of payment as alleged. So, this contention of the tenant has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge has calculated the total dues and come to the finding that the total dues have amounted to Rs.22,000/-. For the reasons stated above, it cannot be stated that the impugned order is without any materials on record. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order and as such, the impugned order should be sustained. The revisional application, therefore, fails to succeed. It is, therefore, dismissed. However, as the period of payment has already lapsed, the tenant is directed to deposit the entire amount as determined by the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order within 30 days from date. He shall pay the other arrears of rent, if any, thereafter by another instalment within 30 days from the date of first payment. He shall go on paying the current rent as per order of the learned Trial Judge. If no payment is made in the aforesaid manner, the learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.