Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 803 (CAL)

Nandini Sinha v. Anadi Kumar Majee

2012-08-27

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2012
Judgment Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the Order No.17 dated May 18, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, 5th Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.56 of 2006-E thereby disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.56 of 2006E against the defendants for ejectment and other reliefs, inter alia, on the ground of default in respect of the premises in suit. The defendants are contesting the said suit denying the material allegations raised in the plaint and it is their specific contention that the plaintiff / opposite party herein is not their landlord. They have also contended that they are not defaulters as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, they filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions and upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has held that the defendants are liable to pay rent since June 2000 at the rate of Rs.105/-along with statutory interest. The learned Trial Judge directed the defendants / petitioners herein to deposit a sum of Rs.9,659.65 as arrears of rent together with interest within one month from the date of order. Being aggrieved by such order, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff / opposite party herein has stated in the plaint that he was also a tenant in respect of a shop room at the suit property and thereafter, he had purchased the suit property from the erstwhile landlord. Thus, the plaintiff had become the owner of the premises in suit. The plaintiff has contended that the previous landlord issued a letter of attornment on transfer and such letter of attornment was duly received by the defendants, but, in spite of that, the defendants did not pay any rent to the plaintiff / opposite party herein. Thus, the plaintiff had become the owner of the premises in suit. The plaintiff has contended that the previous landlord issued a letter of attornment on transfer and such letter of attornment was duly received by the defendants, but, in spite of that, the defendants did not pay any rent to the plaintiff / opposite party herein. On the other hand, the defendants have contended that they had no knowledge of such purchase and they came to know the fact of purchase of the premises in suit after the institution of the suit. It may be mentioned herein that the defendants run a shop at the suit property and admittedly, they were tenants under the previous landlord from whom the plaintiff had purchased the suit property. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions and from the deposition of the defendants, I find that the defendants / petitioners herein have contended that the plaintiff was never the owner of the suit property and that they came to know about the alleged purchase of the plaintiff for the first time from the plaint. During the cross-examination, the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff has been residing in the suit property for about 10 to 12 years and that he came to know from the Rent Controller that the plaintiff / opposite party herein is not the owner of the suit property. But, this statement, I find, has no basis at all. During the cross-examination, the defendant has admitted that he came to know that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit premises. This admission of the defendant, I hold, is enough to determine the relationship between the parties. On the other hand, the plaintiff has adduced evidence that, by a Registered Deed of Conveyance dated June 12, 2000 executed by the then landlord, he became the owner of the suit property and after selling the said property in favour of the plaintiff, the then landlord had sent a letter of attornment dated June 26, 2000 upon the tenant of the said premises. The O.P.W.1 (plaintiff) has also proved by evidence that another copy of the letter of attornment dated June 26, 2000 was sent by his Advocate and the said letter was received back by his Advocate. The envelope has been marked Exhibit B series. The O.P.W.1 (plaintiff) has also proved by evidence that another copy of the letter of attornment dated June 26, 2000 was sent by his Advocate and the said letter was received back by his Advocate. The envelope has been marked Exhibit B series. The plaintiff has also deposed to the effect that after purchase, the letter of attornment dated June 26, 2000 was sent to the defendant through a special messenger of the erstwhile landlord and a copy was given to him and the said letter of attornment was served upon the defendant no.2 in presence of the plaintiff (O.P.W.). Since, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property, it is expected that he should take keen interest that the letter of attornment be served upon other tenants, that is, the defendants to have the rent from him and so, there is no doubt that such statement should be accepted. Another copy was sent by Registered Post which was returned with a note but the statement in paragraph no.5 of the examination-inchief of the O.P.W.1, I hold, cannot be disbelieved. Mr. Biswanath Mitra, learned Advocate for the defendants / petitioners herein has drawn my attention that the sale deed is still lying with the Office of the Registrar because high valuation was assessed. This is the admission of the plaintiff and as such, sale is not complete and the plaintiff cannot be treated as landlord. Mr. Mitra has also contended that the plaintiff is not holding any Power of Attorney on behalf of the erstwhile landlord and so, according to the definition of landlord as made in Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the plaintiff cannot be described as landlord of the defendants / tenants. Since, the defendants have admitted that they came to know that the plaintiff became the landlord by purchase and the attornment has been proved, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that a landlord need not be the owner of the suit premises. The landlord may be any person who is entitled to receive rent from the tenant. When the erstwhile landlord had made attornment and it is proved by evidence that attornment had been served, I am of the same view with the learned Trial Judge that the plaintiff is the landlord under whom the defendants are tenants. The landlord may be any person who is entitled to receive rent from the tenant. When the erstwhile landlord had made attornment and it is proved by evidence that attornment had been served, I am of the same view with the learned Trial Judge that the plaintiff is the landlord under whom the defendants are tenants. The rate of rent is not in dispute and it is Rs.105/-as per English Calendar Month. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to get rent from June 2000, that is, since the purchase as determined by the learned Trial Judge. So far as deposit of rent with the Rent Controller is concerned, after attornment if any deposit is made in the name of the erstwhile landlord, it is totally invalid. The impugned order is based on evidence and there is no perversity in the findings. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order. However, since the date of deposit has already lapsed, the defendants should be directed to deposit the arrears of rent as determined by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order, within 30 days from date. This application, therefore, fails to succeed and is dismissed. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. However, the defendant is directed to pay the arrears of rent as determined by the impugned order within 30 days from date. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.