Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 210 (CAL)

Pradip Kumar Bhakat v. Jharna Sen

2017-02-22

ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated June 12, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Purulia, District : Purulia in Title Suit No. 145 of 2011. 2. The above suit has been filed by the opposite party under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (in short “the Act of 1997) claiming a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property by evicting the petitioner defendant therefrom. By the impugned order, the learned Court below has disposed of the application filed by the petitioner defendant under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 holding that after the expiry of the contractual period, from January, 2011 the tenancy of the petitioner was extended at an agreed monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- and the petitioner defendant has defaulted the payment of rent since January 2011. The learned Court below further directed the petitioner defendant to pay Rs. 1,42,800/- to the opposite party plaintiff on account of arrear rent for 41 months, together with statutory interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 10 % per annum. Against the impugned order dated June 12, 2014, the petitioner defendant filed a revisional application under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Purulia. Although the said revisional application was not maintainable but by order dated August 26, 2015 the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Purulia disposed of the said application by holding that the parties had agreed to increase the rent of the suit property from January 2011 onwards to Rs. 3,000/- and modified the order impugned to the effect the petitioner has to pay the arrear amount of rent, together with statutory interest payable amounting to Rs. 1,05,000/-. Since the said order dated August 26, 2015 passed the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Purulia in the said revisional application was without jurisdiction and a nullity, the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application. 3. Assailing the impugned order dated June 12, 2014 passed by the learned Court below, Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the decision of the learned Court below to hold that the parties had agreed to increase the rent of the suit property from January 2011 onwards at Rs. 3,000/- per month is vitiated by perversity. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the decision of the learned Court below to hold that the parties had agreed to increase the rent of the suit property from January 2011 onwards at Rs. 3,000/- per month is vitiated by perversity. He further contended that in any event while fixing the arrear rent, together with statutory interest payable by the petitioner defendant at Rs. 1,42,800/- the learned Court below committed a patent illegality by making the petitioner liable to pay the arrear rent from January 2011 to June 2011 twice. 4. However, Mr. Arnab Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party plaintiff contended that after appreciating the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the learned Court below arrived at a finding that the parties had agreed that from the month of January, 2011 the rent of the suit property would be Rs. 3,000/- per month and when such finding is not vitiated by any perversity, this Court should not interfere with the said decision of the learned Court below. He, however, in his usual fairness accepted that there was a mistake on the part of the learned Court below to direct the petitioner to pay arrear rent from January 2011 to June 2011 twice. 5. I have considered the materials on record as well as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. After considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses of the respective parties, both oral and documentary, the learned Court below has held that the petitioner himself had admitted to have requested the opposite party plaintiff for the extension of the tenancy and the execution of the extension agreement. From a reading of the said extension agreement which was proved before the learned Court below it is clear that the same bears the signature of the petitioner defendant and parties agreed to the enhancement of the rent of the suit property from January 2011 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, I do not find that in the present case, the finding of the learned Court below in the impugned order that the parties had agreed to the enhancement of the rent of the suit property from the month of January 2011 at Rs. 3,000/- to be vitiated by any error whatsoever. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, I do not find that in the present case, the finding of the learned Court below in the impugned order that the parties had agreed to the enhancement of the rent of the suit property from the month of January 2011 at Rs. 3,000/- to be vitiated by any error whatsoever. Further, nothing could be pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the finding of the learned Court below that he had defaulted in payment of arrear rent for the 41 months from January 2011 to May, 2014 is erroneous. Accordingly, the learned Court below has correctly held that the amount of defaulted rent by the petitioner for 41 months is Rs. 1,23,000/-. However, the learned Court below committed a mistake in making the petitioner liable to pay the arrear rent for six months from January 2011 to June 2011 twice. 6. For the reasons as aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below holding that the rent payable by the petitioner defendant from the month of January 2011 was enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- per month. The impugned order passed by the learned Court below stands modified only to the extent that the petitioner defendant is liable to pay arrear rent of the suit property from January, 2011 to May 2014 amounting to Rs. 1,23,000/-, together with statutory interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 10%, per annum from the respective date of default in payment of rent till the date of actual payment. 7. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforementioned arrear rent for 41 months at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, together with statutory interest thereon within March 20, 2017. 8. With the above directions, CO 3844 of 2015 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.