Smt. Rekha Nath vs Smt. Biva Koley

Prasenjit Mandal, J.—Challenge is to the Order No. 178 dated July 2, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 27 of 2000 with Title Suit No. 97 of 1997 thereby disposing of an application under Sections 17(2) & (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 127 of 1997 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Howrah for eviction, mesne profits and other reliefs against the opposite party on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. in respect of the suit premises as described in the schedule of the plaint. On transfer, the said suit was re-numbered as Title Suit No. 27 of 2000.

The opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 97 of 1997 for specific performance of contract of sale of immovable property, that is, in respect of the selfsame premises in suit. Two suits are being analogously heard before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah.

While disposing an application under Sections 17(2) & (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the defendant / opposite party herein is a tenant in respect of the suit premises at rental of Rs. 40/- per month and she is a defaulter in payment of rent from April 1993 to April 1997 and the rate of rent is Rs. 40/- per month payable according to English Calendar Month. Accordingly, he has calculated total arrears of rent as Rs. 1,920/-and after calculation of the statutory interest, the total amount to be payable by the defendant to the plaintiff-landlord is to the tune of Rs. 2,099/-. The learned Trial Judge has also directed the defendant to pay such amount by 11 monthly instalments commencing from August 2007.

Being aggrieved by such findings of the impugned order, the landlord-plaintiff has preferred this revisional application.

Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the grievance of the petitioner is over the findings. While landlord-plaintiff has claimed that the rent is Rs. 500/- per month, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the rent per month is Rs. 40/- payable according to English Calendar Month. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of the respective contentions. The learned Trial Judge has analysed the evidence on record.

It may be noted herein that the plaintiff-landlord is a subsequent purchaser of the suit premises. On the other hand, defendant / opposite party herein has claimed that she was a tenant under the previous landlord, namely, Gosto Behari and she paid rent to him at a rental of Rs. 40/- per month. The plaintiff has admitted such fact. The contention of the plaintiff is that after purchase of the land by her, the rent has been settled at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month in respect of three rooms and previously, the tenant / opposite party paid Rs. 40/- in respect of one room only. But, from the evidence on record on behalf of the plaintiff / landlord, it has transpired that the plaintiff / landlord did not inform the defendant / tenant about the change of ownership and the change of the rate of rent meaning thereby there was no attornment of the change of ownership by the plaintiff / landlord to the defendant. The plaintiff / landlord has also failed to prove that he had ever issued any rent receipt in favour of the tenant / opposite party at a rental of Rs. 500/- per month. Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge did not accept the statement of the plaintiff and determined the rent as admitted position of the parties to the tune of Rs. 40/- per month.

On the basis of record, it has appeared that the defendant has failed to show by convincing paper that she paid rent for the premises in suit either to Gosto Behari, that is, previous owner or to the plaintiff from April 1993 till the date of filing of the suit. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge has held that the defendant / opposite party is a defaulter for the said period.

The above findings are based on evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions. So, the findings cannot be said to be perverse at all. I do not find any justification to interfere with the above findings based on evidence. So, this revisional application is devoid of merits.

The other suit for specific performance on contract shall be decided in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.