Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 766 (CAL)

Shaligram Roy v. Amiya Ranjan Kar

2013-10-08

TARUN KUMAR GUPTA

body2013
Judgment : Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6th of September, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Additional Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.305-79 of 2006. It is the case of the petitioner defendant that O. P.s filed said suit for eviction against the petitioner defendant on the ground of default and other grounds. The petitioner defendant appeared in said suit and filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1979 (hereafter to be referred as Act of 1997) praying for determination of the dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and for ascertaining the arrear rent, if any, and for permission to deposit the same in easy instalments. Learned trial court disposed of said application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the petitioner defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent since September, 1999. By the order impugned the petitioner defendant was permitted to deposit the arrear rent as calculated by the learned trial court in two installments. Being aggrieved with said order the petitioner defendant has filed this revisional application. Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya appearing for the petitioner tenant submits that trial court declared the deposits made by the petitioner tenant in the office of rent controller for the period from September, 1999 till August, 10 as invalid deposits as the same was made in the name of one of plaintiff landlords and the same was not preceded by valid tender. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that admittedly O. P. Plaintiff No.2 Gouri Kar used to issue rent receipts after accepting rent from the petitioner defendant tenant. He next submits that on refusal to accept rent on the part of Gouri Kar the petitioner tenant started to send the same by money order from March, 1992 which was duly accepted by O. P. plaintiff No.2 Gouri Kar till August, 1999. He further submits that as O. P. petitioner No.2 refused to accept rent on and from September, 1999 sent by money order, the petitioner defendant tenant was compelled to deposit the same in the office of the rent controller, Calcutta from the month of September, 1999 till August, 2006. He further submits that as O. P. petitioner No.2 refused to accept rent on and from September, 1999 sent by money order, the petitioner defendant tenant was compelled to deposit the same in the office of the rent controller, Calcutta from the month of September, 1999 till August, 2006. He submits that the rent was started to be deposited in the office of rent Controller from the month of September, 1999 as the rent for September, 1999 sent on 7th of October, 1999 through money order was returned refused. According to him, learned trial court was palpably wrong to hold that the deposits in the rent Controller staring from the month of September, 1999 was not preceded by valid tender. He next submits that rent receipts were granted all along by the O. P. plaintiff No.2 Gouri and she also accepted rents sent through money order in her name alone from the month of March, 1992 till August, 1999. He contends that subsequent deposits in the office of rent controller staring from September, 1999 cannot be branded as invalid deposits being deposited in the name of one of the landlords. In support of his contention he refers the case of Nawal Kishore Agarwalla vs. Samarendra Nath Shaw as reported in 1988 (1) CLJ page 34. In that case it was held by this court relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court page 354 (State of A. P. and another vs. K. Anil Kumar etc.) that rents deposited by the tenant with the rent Controller in the name of one of the plaintiffs are valid deposits as the same can be withdrawn by the said landlord and that the same tantamount to payment to all the landlords. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order impugned by treating the deposits made in the office of Rent Controller for the period September, 1999 till August, 2010 as valid deposits. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya appearing for the O. P. landlords, on the other hand, submits that after purchase of the suit premises a joint notice was sent to the petitioner defendant by learned counsel of the O. P. landlords disclosing the purchase of the same by both the plaintiffs. According to him, said notice was duly received by the petitioner defendant tenant by putting his signature on the postal A/D card on 25th January, 1992. According to him, said notice was duly received by the petitioner defendant tenant by putting his signature on the postal A/D card on 25th January, 1992. He next submits that though O. P. plaintiff No.2 Gouri Kar used to accept rent from the petitioner tenant issuing rent receipts but the counterfoil of the rent receipt for February 1991 (Ext. C) showed that it bears the signature of O. P. plaintiff No.1 Amiya Ranjan Kar. According to him, the petitioner defendant tenant deposited rents in the office of the rent controller only in the name of O. P. plaintiff No.2 Gouri Kar i.e., one of the landlords though he knew that both the O. P. plaintiffs were his landlords. He submits that in view of the ratio of the case law reported in 82 CWN page 684 (Prabhabati Das and ors. vs. R. R. Joneja) deposit of rent by the tenant in the name of one of the landlords is not a valid desposit. Admittedly, the O. P. plaintiffs were the purchaser landlords. It appears that only in one occasion (rent of February 1991) the rent receipt was issued under the signature of O.P. plaintiff No.1 Mr. Ranjan Kar. It is true that a notice was sent to the petitioner defendant tenant under registered post with A/D disclosing that both the O. P. plaintiffs were purchaser landlords and that said notice was received by the tenant by putting his signature on the A/D card on 25th of January, 1992. But it is a fact that save and except the rent for February, 1991 O. P. plaintiff No.2 Gouri Kar all along issued rent receipts under her sole signature and also accepted rent sent by money order on and from March, 1992 till August, 1999, though said money orders were sent in the sole name of O. P. plaintiff No.2 Gouri Kar. In the case of Prabhabati Das (supra) the rent receipts bore the names of other landlords just by the words “others” or “minor sons”, but in the case in hand the name of the other plaintiff landlord i.e., O. P. plaintiff No.1 was not mentioned in the rent receipts. As such, the facts of the case of Prabhabati Das (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. As such, the facts of the case of Prabhabati Das (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the case of Purushottam Dhar (supra) this High Court held that the deposits made with the rent Controller in the name of a firm were not valid deposits as the firm was not in existence at the relevant time (AIR 1982 Calcutta page 505). However, said decision of this Court was overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 1983 Supreme Court page 354 (State of A. P. & anr. vs. K. Anil Kumar & ors.) by declaring those deposits as valid deposits. Relying on said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court this Court held in the case of Nawal Kishore Agarwalla (supra) that the deposits made in the name of one of the plaintiff landlords is a valid deposit as said plaintiff landlord will be at liberty to withdraw the same on behalf of all the landlords. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties as stated above I am of the opinion that the deposit of rents in the office of rent Controller starting from September, 1999 followed by a valid tender through money order being refused, till August, 2010 should be treated as valid deposits. In view of the discussions made above the order impugned so far as it relates to declaring the deposits made in the office of the rent Controller for the period September, 1999 till August, 2010 as invalid deposits is hereby set aside treating those deposits as valid deposits. The matter is hereby remanded back to the learned trial court for disposing of the application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 in view of the discussions made above after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties. As this is an old ejectment suit of 2006 learned trial court is requested to dispose of said application within four weeks from the date of communication of the order or from the date of reopening after puja vacation whichever is later. It is needless to mention that O. P. No.2 Gouri Kar being one of the landlords is entitled to withdraw the rents deposited by the petitioner tenant in her sole name in the office of rent controller and that said withdrawal will amount to withdrawal of both the landlords. It is needless to mention that O. P. No.2 Gouri Kar being one of the landlords is entitled to withdraw the rents deposited by the petitioner tenant in her sole name in the office of rent controller and that said withdrawal will amount to withdrawal of both the landlords. The revisional application stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsels of the parties, if applied for.