Judgment : Arindam Sinha, J. The appellant before us is the plaintiff in Money Suit no.34 of 1995 which was tried and decided by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Asansol by his judgment dated 17th May, 2003. The plaintiff is the owner of premises being municipal holding no.32/57 situated in ward no.7 of Asansol Municipality, part of which remains occupied by an existing tenant, the defendant. By an agreement dated 19th February, 1994 which was tendered in evidence as exhibit 1, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff, inter alia, that: a) the said agreement would have effect from the date on which renovation work of the branch premises (the demise) as prepared by the defendant was completed by the plaintiff (clause 1); b) the rent of the demise would be at a lump sum rate of Rs.18,750/- per month inclusive of all rates and taxes etc (clause 3); and c) the plaintiff shall arrange for supply of water to the demise at all times and if there is interruption in the supply of water, alternative arrangement for supply of water to the demise for use by the staff members of the defendant shall be made by the plaintiff at his cost (clause 21). At that time the tenant was paying rent of Rs.1325/- per month. It is the plaint case that the defendants knowing they had obtained full satisfaction in respect of construction (in terms of Clause 1 of the said agreement) as on September, 1994, are not paying the agreed enhanced rate of Rs.18,750/- per month. The plaintiff also alleged that earlier rents @ Rs.1325/- per month were in arrears for the months of July and August, 1994. Thus, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, money decree and further payment of rent from the month of November, 1995 and subsequently. The defendants filed a written statement alleging that the said agreement was not binding upon them, renovation/repairing work had not been completed and, inter alia, that arrangement for tap water connection from Municipal Corporation had not been made and water reservoir had not been provided. Apart from the said agreement the plaintiff also tendered in evidence as exhibit 2, a report dated 23rd November, 1994 of the Engineer, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Kolkata, in respect of the demise. Apart from the said agreement the plaintiff also tendered in evidence as exhibit 2, a report dated 23rd November, 1994 of the Engineer, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Kolkata, in respect of the demise. We find from the report that the maker of it had inspected the demise on 21st November, 1994 and found that the renovation work as required by the Bank had already been completed as per schedule of renovation work prepared on 25th August, 1994 jointly by the Branch Manager, Divisional Manager and the said Engineer. He in his report recommended that the enhanced rent as agreed may be released to the plaintiff with effect from the month of September, 1994. The plaintiff also tendered in evidence as exhibit 3, a letter dated 16th January, 1995 from the Assistant General Manager UCO Bank to the plaintiff informing him that his Divisional Manager had already been advised to pay him the enhanced rent for their Asansol Branch premises with effect from the month of September, 1994. The defendants, on the other hand, tendered in evidence several documents including a Power of Attorney, to contend that the said agreement was not binding upon the defendants, the renovation/repair work had not been done properly, the demise continued to be in a state of disrepair and there was no arrangement of tap water connection from the Municipal Corporation to the said demise whereby the defendant could not be called upon to pay the enhanced rent as per the said agreement. On these materials the Ld. Trial Judge held that exhibit 2 being the report of the Engineer of the Bank had not been challenged and exhibits 3 and 4 were proof of acceptance and effect of the said agreement by the defendant. As such the defendants were estopped from challenging the said agreement on account of incapacity of the defendant no.3 in having executed the same on behalf of the bank. However, the Ld. Trial Judge went on to hold that the plaintiff had not been able to fulfil his part of due performance as per the said agreement. The Ld. Trial Judge further went on to hold that since due performance on the part of the plaintiff of the said agreement remained incomplete, the plaintiff cannot enforce the said agreement. On such finding the Ld. Trial Judge dismissed the suit. Mr. Banerjee Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the Ld. The Ld. Trial Judge further went on to hold that since due performance on the part of the plaintiff of the said agreement remained incomplete, the plaintiff cannot enforce the said agreement. On such finding the Ld. Trial Judge dismissed the suit. Mr. Banerjee Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the Ld. Trial Judge after having found that the agreement was a good agreement and the condition for enhanced rent being payable having been fulfilled, fell in error by allowing suspension of rent. He relied on the decision reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1361 (Surendra Nath Vs. Stephen Court Limited) wherein it was held that the doctrine of suspension of rent should not be regarded as a rule of justice, equity and good conscience in India in all circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it would depend on the circumstances of each case where a tenant would be entitled to suspend payment of the rent or whether he should be held liable to pay proportionate part of the rent. Mr. Amal Mitra appearing on behalf of the defendant Bank submitted that the Ld. Trial Judge had committed no error in making the impugned judgment and that the same should be affirmed in appeal. In the premises we have to consider whether the Ld. Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit to the effect that there would be suspension of agreed rent. We have scanned the pleadings and evidence before us. We are unable to accept the contention of the defendants that the defendant no.3 was not authorized to enter into the said agreement on behalf of the defendant Bank. We agree with the findings of the Ld. Trial Judge that the said agreement cannot be disputed and that Clause 1 thereof had been performed by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendants. We also find that the defendants did not resort to Clause 21 of the said agreement in their written statement. In any event the defendant did not adduce any evidence to show either that there was no water supply to the demise or there was interruption in such supply and the defendant had incurred expenses in making alternative arrangements therefor. In view of our findings as above we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment, the effect of which is suspension of agreed rent. In view of our findings as above we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment, the effect of which is suspension of agreed rent. The defendants, as aforesaid, neither pleaded non-fulfillment of Clause 21 of the said agreement by the plaintiff nor claimed set-off against expenses incurred for making alternative arrangements for obtaining water supply in the demise. From the materials on record we are unable, therefore, to even quantify what should be the amount to be deducted from the enhanced agreed rent payable to the plaintiff in the absence of it being established that clause 21 of the said agreement had not been duly performed. It was also told to us by Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants that the Bank had since shifted from the said demise but continues to hold on to the same. For the reasons stated above we set aside the impugned judgment. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for payment of agreed rent from the month of September, 1994 to the month of November, 1995 @ Rs.18,750/- per month and for the subsequent rents in arrears upto the date of decree, payable at the same rate being Rs.43,12,500/- calculated upto November, 2013 and the further sum @ Rs.18,750/- per month for the days in December, 2013 upto the date of decree. Since we have held that the rent was agreed @ Rs.18,750/- per month, deposits, if any, made by the defendant with the Rent Controller at any other rate would be bad deposits and the defendant, therefore, at liberty to withdraw the same. So far as the claim for interest is concerned, the plaintiff will be entitled to interest on the decretal sum @ 5% per annum, simple, till realization there being no evidence adduced as to what was the commercial rate of interest in the material time. The appeal is thus allowed without any order as to cost. Deficit court fees must be paid by the plaintiff. Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. I agree