JUDGMENT 1. THE plaintiff/opposite party instituted Title Suit no. 75/2005 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah for eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit property as well as for recovery of possession thereof. THE defendant/petitioner filed a petition under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter the Act) and prayed for determination of the rate of rent due and payable by it including arrear rent. 2. THE case made out by the defendant/petitioner in the petition appears to be that a petition under Section 7(1) of the Act had been filed on October 4, 2005 and that current rent is being deposited in Court in accordance with law; that previously there was cordial business relation between the plaintiff and the defendant as a result of which the defendant (previously known as Manjusree Packaging Pvt. Ltd.) gave accommodation loan from time to time since January 31, 1991 as well as sold and delivered goods to the plaintiff resulting in the plaintiff being liable to pay dues of Rs. 4,71,238.17p in the year 1996; that pursuant to intervention of well-wishers and friends, an agreement was made on March 28, 2005 whereby the plaintiff admitted the aforesaid dues and agreed to adjustment of the same with the monthly rent in respect of the suit property on and from April, 1996 without interest and that the monthly rent of the suit property would continue to be Rs. 2,000/- per month till such adjustment; that the date on which the agreement was executed, the amount of rent due was Rs. 2,16,000/- and that the defendant is entitled to adjustment of Rs. 2,55,237.17p with the monthly rent; and that the allegation made by the plaintiff regarding the defendant being defaulter in respect of payment of rent is absolutely false and baseless. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff/opposite party by filing a written objection. The material allegations were denied and disputed. At the hearing of the petition under Section 7(2) of the Act, one witness each was produced on either side. A number of documents were proved and marked as exhibits. It is noteworthy that the so called agreement referred to in the petition was not tendered in evidence and, therefore, was not marked as an exhibit. 3. At the hearing of the petition under Section 7(2) of the Act, one witness each was produced on either side. A number of documents were proved and marked as exhibits. It is noteworthy that the so called agreement referred to in the petition was not tendered in evidence and, therefore, was not marked as an exhibit. 3. THE witness on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party, however, deposed to the effect that a letter dated October 25, 1990 was despatched to Manjusree Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and in that letter it was mentioned that the rate of rent had been enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- per month since September, 1993. 4. IN the plaint, the plaintiff/opposite party in paragraph 4 pleaded that in terms of an agreement rent was escalated to Rs. 10,000/- and that the plaintiff/opposite party possesses a photocopy of the same, the original having been misplaced. It has also been stated in paragraph 5 that the defendant/petitioner is a defaulter since September, 1994. The learned judge heard the parties and by an order dated March 15, 2010 ordered as follows : that the defdt./petitioner is directed to pay to the pltff./OPW Rs. 30,21,944/- as outstanding dues within six months from the date of this order. Thus the petition is disposed of on contest. Fix 31.5.10 for framing of issues. ' This order of the learned judge has been challenged in the present revisional application by the defendant in the suit. 5. I have heard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate in support of the application and Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate opposing the same. 6. IN course of passing the impugned order, the learned judge returned a finding that the rent payable by the defendant/petitioner is Rs. 10,000/- since September 1993 and that it is a defaulter in payment of rent since September, 1994 till February, 2010. The learned Judge appears to have relied on a purported letter of October 25, 1990, spoken to by the witness for the plaintiff/opposite party, wherefrom it revealed to him that rent had been enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- per month from the month of September, 1993. As noticed above, the plaint case is that rent was enhanced in pursuance of an agreement of the two versions which one is correct, is unexplained. 10,000/- per month from the month of September, 1993. As noticed above, the plaint case is that rent was enhanced in pursuance of an agreement of the two versions which one is correct, is unexplained. Be that as it may, the plaintiff/opposite party did not produce the original letter or the agreement before the Court, presumably on the ground stated in the plaint that it had been misplaced. Photocopy thereof does not appear to have been tendered in evidence whether it could be considered as secondary evidence is a point which requires a decision by the learned Judge. There was no material based whereon it could be concluded with some degree of certainty that the defendant/petitioner had accepted enhancement of rent. Mere sending of a letter that the rate of rent stands enhanced would not, without acceptance of the terms thereof either expressly or by implication, amount to willingness or consent on the part of the defendant/petitioner to make payment of rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 10,000/-. The learned Judge appears to have viewed non-filing of any paper by the defendant to show that rent had not been enhanced to Rs.10,000/- since September, 1993 as fatal. Obviously, the burden was not on the defendant to show that rent had not been enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The onus on him to establish that Rs. 2,000/- was duly discharged by him. The plaintiff/opposite party having pleaded in the plaint that Rs. 10,000/- was payable as monthly rent, the burden was, in fact, on it to prove its case which unfortunately was not established. The learned Judge appears to have given no cogent reason as to why the plea of the plaintiff/opposite party appealed to him in preference to the plea raised by the defendant/petitioner. IN the process, the learned Judge committed flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of law and arrived at a finding which has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. The order cannot be retained on record and hence stands set aside. The learned Judge is directed to consider the petition under Section 7(2) of the Act afresh on the basis of the available materials and in the light of the observations made above. Subject to his convenience, the learned Judge may give a reasoned decision as early as possible but not later than eight weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to his convenience, the learned Judge may give a reasoned decision as early as possible but not later than eight weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be open to the learned Judge to hear the parties once again, if he considers it necessary to do so. The revisional application stands allowed without costs.