Manikyaram Chatuspati vs Shrimati Sikha Dev and Others

Prasenjit Mandal, J.

1.These two applications are at the instance of the Plaintiff and are directed against the order No. 39 dated March 1, 2008 and order No. 50 dated August 13, 2008 both passed bythe learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, at Midnapore in Title Suit No. 172 of 2005.

Since both the applications are related to the same matter as to payment arrears of rent and they are inter-related, both the applications are taken up together for hearing and they are disposed of by this common judgment.

For convenience, I am taking up the C.O. No. 3119 of 2008.

The Plaintiff/Petitioner herein has challenged the order passed on the application u/s 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the Defendant is not a defaulter in respect of payment of rent till date. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been preferred.

Mr. Mahato, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, contends that the rent was Rs. 170/- at the earlier stage. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs. 200/- per month and the Defendant/tenant has been depositing the same with the Court. There is no dispute at present as to the quantum of rent in respect of the suit premises. He submits that the suit was filed for eviction against the opposite parties on the ground of building, re-building, default in payment of rent since September, 2004. But the learned Trial Judge has observed that there is no arrears of rent. He also submits that the Plaintiff became the owner of the suit premises by dint of Will in September, 2004. So, the Defendant was required to deposit all the arrears of rent since the period of default and it is the specific case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant is a defaulter since September, 2004.

The Defendant is required to deposit rents since September, 2004 in this suit. So, the impugned order should be set aside.

Mr. Mahato has next submitted that the Plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the amount of rent deposited in the earlier suit, that is, Title Suit No. 224 of 1995. This prayer, I hold, cannot be entertained because the present Plaintiff/Petitioner was not the Plaintiff/landlord in the earlier suit in respect of the suit premises. So, this prayer cannot be entertained.

On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, submits that since the tenants /opposite parties have deposited all the arrears of rent with the court month by month, there is no arrears of rent at present and so, the learned Trial Judge has rightly disposed of the application u/s 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 holding that there is no arrear of rents.

Therefore, the point for consideration 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 that the Plaintiff was not the owner cum landlord of the premises in suit all along. He became owner cum landlord of the suit premises by way of a deed of Will dated October/November, 2005 from the previous owner of the suit premises. The previous landlord filed a suit being Title Suit No. 224 of 1995 against the tenants for eviction and recovery of khas possession. In that suit, the Defendants/tenants were contesting. In that suit, the tenants filed two applications - one u/s 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and another u/s 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. In that suit, the Defendants / tenants paid rents up to October, 2005. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on November 19, 2005. Thereafter, the present suit was instituted on October 24, 2005 by the Plaintiff of the instant suit claiming that the Defendants was a defaulter since September, 2004. Though the Defendants did not produce the challan in respect of their contention that in the earlier suit they paid rents up to October, 2005, they have filed one information slip to the effect that rent was deposited in the earlier suit up to October, 2005. So, the contention of the Plaintiff that the Defendants are defaulters since September, 2004, cannot be accepted. The learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that since the Defendant has complied with the provisions of Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act in the earlier Title Suit No. 224 of 1995 up to September, 2005. So, the tenants were not required to deposit again in the subsequent suit with respect to the entire period of default, as claimed. After appearance in the instant suit, the Defendants have been paying the current rent in the Court. But by a subsequent arrangement, the Defendants were paying rents for the tenanted premises cash in hand through the learned Advocates for the period of July, 2006 to May, 2007 and an order had been passed to that effect. Thereafter, the Defendants have been depositing the rent in the Court. The present suit having been filed in October, 2005 and rent having been paid since October, 2005 in this instant suit and up till now the Defendants have deposited the rents month by month. There is no arrears of rent. Therefore, I find that the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that there is no arrears of rent.

During argument, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Defendants should be directed to make payment of rents to the Plaintiff direct or through their respective Advocates to which, the learned Advocate for the Defendants has raised strong objection. Though rents were paid for about one year in cash in hand through learned Advocates, thereafter, a dispute cropped up. I think for the purpose of safety of both the parties, the deposit of rents by the tenants in favor of the Plaintiff in the Court should be continued and the submission of Mr. Mahato in this regard, cannot be accepted.

Therefore, I hold that the learned Trial Judge was justified holding that there is no arrears of rent. Consequently, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, this revisional application fails to succeed.

It is, therefore, dismissed.

Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

C.O. No.1754 of 2008

This application is also related to deposit of rent through Court challan and determination of the question of ownership as observed above. The Defendants are depositing the rents in the Court by challan and the application u/s 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 has been disposed of determining the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This application has become in fructuous at present.

So, this application is also dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.