Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 25 (CAL)

Lalita Devi v. Md. Mukhtar

2016-01-11

SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Asansol in connection with Title Suit No. 4 of 2007, the tenant/petitioner has filed this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside the impugned order. 2. According to the revisionist the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the law of limitation and thus came to a wrong finding. The revisionist contended that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the period of alleged default was disputed by the petitioner and it was the duty of the Court below to assess the arrear rent. According to him, due to absence of any order regarding arrear rent, he could not comply with the provisions of Section 7 (1) and Section 7 (2) of W.B.P.T. Act 1997. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party landlord contended that the landlord tenancy relation and also the rate of rent were not disputed. The revisionist wanted to say that when the landlord/opposite party refused to take the rent from her, she had sent the admitted rent by money order and two occasions the landlord issued kuchha rent receipts instead of a pucca rent receipts. 3. At the time of hearing before the learned Court below, this tenant revisionist failed to produce any document in support of her contention. It appears from the record that the rent is admitted and the present revisionist tenant has paid rent up to February 2006. As the arrear rent was not paid within a stipulated period by the revisionist tenant, the learned Court below has rejected the application under Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that law of limitation will not lie in this case in view of a reference made before the Hon’ble Division Bench by a Coordinate Bench. He has relied on the decision reported in (2012) 1 WBLR (Cal 595) wherein our Hon’ble Division Bench has decided the limitation point. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that law of limitation will not lie in this case in view of a reference made before the Hon’ble Division Bench by a Coordinate Bench. He has relied on the decision reported in (2012) 1 WBLR (Cal 595) wherein our Hon’ble Division Bench has decided the limitation point. “Time limit fixed, as mentioned in Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 of the 1997 Act to pay or to deposit with the Controller or the Civil Judge all admitted arrears of rent together with interest, as mentioned in clause (b) thereof and consequently, the time limit mentioned for this purpose, as mentioned in Sub-Section (2) is not inflexible and it can be extended by the Court by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.” 5. On perusal of the said judgment I am of the view that the limitation point has been settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Therefore, the Court has the power to extend the time limit to pay all admitted arrears of rent together with interest. 6. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable. It is admitted position that the revisionist has paid the rent up to February 2006 and admitted rate of rent is 250 per month. Therefore, by way of a mathematical calculation I would find that the revisionist tenant is a defaulter from February 2006 to December 2015 i.e. for 118 months. Therefore, the arrear rent would be 118 X 250 = Rs. 29500. Statutory interest at the rate of 10 per cent to be added with this arrear rent. This Court is not oblivious to the anguish and grievance of the opposite party/landlord. Much time has been taken away by the petitioner/tenant. Therefore, the present petitioner/tenant is hereby directed to pay of Rs. 29540 + statutory interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum at a time by 12th February 2016. 7. In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is hereby set aside. The petitioner/tenant, if deposits the said arrear amount along with interest by 12th February 2016, in that case the learned Court below shall proceed with the case from the stage of framing of issues. 7. In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is hereby set aside. The petitioner/tenant, if deposits the said arrear amount along with interest by 12th February 2016, in that case the learned Court below shall proceed with the case from the stage of framing of issues. If the said amount is not paid learned Court below is at liberty to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Revisional application is allowed. 8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Court below for his information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. 9. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.