Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1519 (CAL)

Bidyut Baran De v. Shyam Chand Sen

2011-12-15

JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2011
Judgment :- Joymalya Bagchi, J. In the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged an order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the learned trial Judge whereby the learned Judge has, inter alia, directed the opposite party no. 1/defendant to deposit arrear rents determined of Rs. 30,875/-under Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1997) in 36 equal instalments of Rs. 858/- within one month from the date of the order. The short compass of facts giving rise to the impugned order is that the petitioner/landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default and reasonable requirement against the opposite party no. 1/tenant under Section 6 of the Act of 1997. In the said suit, the tenant after entering appearance filed an application under Section 7 (1) and (2) of the Act of 1997, inter alia, praying for depositing current rate @ 125 per month from the month of Kartic 1415 B.S. and also for determination of arrear rent, if any, with a further direction to permit him to deposit such arrears in easy instalments. Having heard the parties, the learned trial Court disposed of the aforesaid application by impugned order dated 29.09.2010 directing the opposite party no. 1/tenant to deposit current monthly rent @ 125 per month payable by the 13th of each succeeding month and also directing to deposit all arrear rent to the tune of Rs. 30,875/- in 36 equal instalments of Rs. 858/- within one month from the date of the order. On a perusal of the impugned order I find that the learned trial Judge has directed the opposite party no. 1/tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 30875/-in 36 equal instalments of Rs. 858/- within one month from the date of the order. It is beyond my comprehension as to how 36 instalments can be paid within one month. I find that the order is patently absurd and eminently unworkable and cannot survive for this reason alone. The parties also appear not to be have acted in terms of the said order. From the submissions of the parties it transpires that opposite party no. I find that the order is patently absurd and eminently unworkable and cannot survive for this reason alone. The parties also appear not to be have acted in terms of the said order. From the submissions of the parties it transpires that opposite party no. 1/tenant had not deposited all the instalments within one month but has deposited a substantial portion of the arrear rents till date and, admittedly, the petitioner has condoned such delayed deposit of arrear rents by withdrawing the said deposits. Having regard to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, I feel that interest of justice would be best served if the impugned order is modified to the effect that the opposite party no. 1/tenant be directed to deposit the remainder of arrear rents as determined in the impugned order peremptorily by 31st January, 2012. With the aforesaid modification, the instant application is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.