Trust Estate Khimji Keshawji vs Pioneer Mechanicals

Sudip Ahluwalia, J.—1. This Revisional application has been directed against the Order No. 17 passed by the Ld. 3rd Bench of the Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Case No. 132 of 2013, on the 11th of November, 2014.

The background of the matter is that the defendant/respondent was originally a sub-tenant under the tenants of the petitioners. However, on 15th March, 2000, the erstwhile original tenants Suman Das and others informed him that they were surrendering their tenancy to the landlords and accordingly the defendant became a direct tenant under them on and from 1st April, 2000. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that the rental amount paid by the tenant was Rs. 1298/- per month, of which the breakup is as under -

The Tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a Letter/notice U/S 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 dated 04.01.2013. After his failure to quit the premises the Ejectment Suit was filed. He then entered appearance after having received the summons on 28th March, 20013, and filed his applications U/Ss.7(1) as well as 7(2) of the said Act on 16th April, 20013. By the impugned Order the Ld. Court below disposed off both the applications. The defendants was found to be a defaulter in payment of rent for three months from August to October, 2012, and was therefore directed to pay the composite amount of Rs. 4673/- including the rent for the period of default @ Rs. 1298/- per month, along with statutory interest thereupon.

The petitioner/landlord is aggrieved with the above decision. Its contention is that the Court has erred in holding that the total rent payable by the respondent/Tenant all inclusive is only Rs. 1298/- per month. According to the petitioner, the Ld. Court ought to have held that the respondent/defendant was also liable to pay the Municipal Taxes/Charges under Section 5(8) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Further contention of the petitioner is that the defendant was statutorily obliged to ascertain and pay up the Municipal charges payable by him directly to the Municipality for the portion of the premises/building under his occupation. But he failed to do so, and therefore is not entitled to the benefit of protection Under Section 7(2), and that consequently the Ld. Court below acted with material irregularity in granting him such benefit after erroneously holding that the Municipal charges were included in the composite rental amount of Rs. 1298/- per month.

The petitioner has also contended that the Ld. Court below ought not to have entertained/allowed the two applications U/Ss. 7(1) as well as 7(2), since both of them cannot be preferred simultaneously by a tenant. It was further asserted that the Trial Court below also acted illegally in directing the tenant/respondent to "deposit the arrears in Court", instead of paying up directly to the landlord who is entitled to receive the same. Hence according to the petitioner, on these grounds also the impugned Order is liable to be set aside.

At this stage it would be appropriate to consider the reasonings on the basis of which the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Court below. The relevant extracts are set out as under -

"...The rent bill for the month of July, 2012 was placed before the Court on behalf of the defendant. ............Next I come to the ingredients of "rent". It is now well settled that "rent payable" includes maintenance charges @ 10% of the agreed rent as well as occupier''s share of municipal or corporation taxes. It is significant to note that the amount payable by the tenant towards commercial surcharge does not form part of "rent" and is outside the ambit of section 5 WBPT Act. Section 5(7) postulates about payment of maintenance charges at the rate of 10% and 5(8) contemplates the payment of occupier''s share of Municipal or corporation tax only.

The uncontroverted rent bill raised for the month of July, 2012 reflects that the amount payable was Rs. 1298/- including Rs. 1050/- towards rent, Rs. 105/-(10% of Rs. 1050/-) under the head of maintenance and Rs. 143/- for service tax. The space for taxes and surcharge has been kept vacant.

This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that this document has been admittedly issued by the plaintiffs only and it is thus for them only to explain as to why no corporation tax or surcharge was collected from the defendant in July, 2012. The only plausible explanation which can be deduced from the said act (raising bill for July, 2012 without tax and surcharge) is that the said liabilities (tax and commercial surcharge) are covered within the agreed rent of Rs. 1050/- as mentioned in the said bill.

The copy of the tenancy agreement also supports the said arrangement. Paragraph 1(b) thereof lays down that the monthly rent (at that time it was Rs. 750/-) shall be inclusive of Municipal rates and taxes but does not include Corporation surcharge.

It also cannot be overlooked that in the plaint there is no specification regarding the amount payable as Municipal Property tax or surcharge. It is also not the positive case of the plaintiffs that the Corporation authorities have demanded any ascertainable amount towards tax or surcharge for the suit premises occupied by the defendant.

It is true that as per the agreement, the surcharge was payable by the defendant/tenant. But this liability is beyond the scope and purview of section 5. As already mentioned above, the said provision specifically makes the tenant liable to pay the maintenance charges and taxes but is conspicuously silent about surcharges. This is exactly why the same (surcharge) does not form part of rent and it can be inferred that the tenant is liable to pay the same only as per demand.

The undisputed bill for July, 2012 also reflects that no amount has been realised towards property tax or commercial surcharge. This itself signifies that in terms of the agreement, the rent of Rs. 1050/- included those liabilities and that is exactly why those two spaces have been kept blank and no separate amount has been shown in the said bill under those heads. Had it not been so, the plaintiff could and should have alleged such non-payment of the full/entire rent for July 2012 too. Instead of doing so, they preferred to agitate the non-payment of rent only from August, 2012.

Finally, both sections 7(1) and 7(2) speaks of the responsibility of the tenant to pay/deposit rent at the rate at which it was last paid. In this case, the last undisputed rent was paid by the defendant at the rate of Rs. 1298/- only. Since no dispute has been raised by the plaintiffs till that period, I find it safe to conclude that the said amount of Rs. 1298/- covers all the components of "rent" in its broader sense.

In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the defendant is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1298/- only..........."

The petitioner is aggrieved with this determination since his case is that the Municipal charges under the Kolkata Municipal Act are to be paid by the tenant himself, and has therefore drawn attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, as well as the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 regarding the liability and obligations of a tenant.

Section 5 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 provides -

"5. Obligations of tenants - (8) Every tenant shall pay his share of municipal tax as an occupier of the premises in accordance with the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (West Ben. Act LIX of 1980) or the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (West Ben. Act XXII of 1993)...."

The relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 relied upon by the petitioner are also set out as follows -

"193. Incidence of [property tax] on lands and buildings - (1) The [property tax] on lands and buildings shall be primarily leviable,-

(a) if the land or building is let, upon the lessor;

(b) if the land or building is sublet, upon the superior lessor;

(c) if the land or building is sublet, upon the person in whom the right to let such land or building vests.

Recovery of [property tax] on lands and buildings from occupiers - (1) On the failure to recover any sum due on account of [property tax] on any land or building from the person primarily liable therefor under section 193 [the Municipal Commissioner shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 or in any other law for the time being in force, recover] from every occupier of such land or building, by attachment of the rent payable by such occupier, a portion of the total sum due which bears, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to that sum as the rent annually payable by such occupier bears to the total amount of rent annually payable in respect of the whole of such land or building.

(2) An occupier, from whom any sum is recovered under sub-section (1), shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable for the payment of such sum, and may, in addition, to have recourse to other remedies that may be open to him, deduct the amount so recovered from the amount of any rent becoming due from time to time from him to such person."

(Emphasis added).

The petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in "Calcutta Gujarati Education Society and another v. Calcutta Municipal Corpn. And Others) reported in , (2003) 10 SCC 533 in support of its contention that it was incumbent upon the defendant/tenant himself to ascertain what were the Municipal charges payable by him, and to directly pay the same to the Municipal Corporation. The assertion therefore is that the amount of Rs. 1298/- determined as "rent" by the Ld. Court below is incorrect since the "rent" also ought to have included the separate Municipal charges which the tenant was statutorily bound to pay. But he failed to do so, and therefore ''defaulted'' in payment of that part of the "rent" which automatically ought to have been paid by him to the Corporation.

In the case of "Calcutta Gujarati Education Society" (supra), the Supreme Court had observed inter alia -

"39. The Act applicable to Calcutta also imposes a ''surcharge'' as part of "consolidated rate" or tax of which the whole burden is on the tenant, sub-tenant or occupier who is putting the premises to non-residential or commercial use. The burden of this ''surcharge'' as part of "consolidated rate" is only on the person putting the premises to non-residential or commercial use. The imposition of this surcharge for properties in use for non-residential and commercial purposes with apportionment of that liability only on persons using the property in the manner aforesaid, is a special feature of the Act applicable to Calcutta ....

... We have resorted to a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of Act applicable to Calcutta. We have come to the conclusion that as tenant, sub-tenant and occupants are "persons liable" with owner or lessor being the ''persons primarily liable'', the former category of ''persons liable'' have a right to prefer appeal against proposed valuation and assessment of "consolidated rate" by deposit of that portion of "consolidated rate" or surcharge which is found leviable and payable by them. Such portion of "consolidated rate" and ''surcharge'' is separately determined and ascertainable from the order of assessment and the demand bills and notices for recovery, if any, issued to the persons "primarily liable" or "persons liable." The decision of this Court in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) on the provisions of Bombay Act, therefore, in our opinion, is distinguishable. In the case before us, the tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers as "persons liable" have to be recognised as aggrieved parties with independent right of appeal to them on pre-deposit of portion of a "consolidated rate" or surcharge, found leviable and recoverable from each of them.

We find that the machinery provisions for assessment and recovery of tax basically involve the owner or the lessor who is ''primarily liable'' for the tax on property although in the course of assessment and recovery of portion of tax from the tenants, sub-tenants or occupants, their involvement is also directed. It is with the purpose to make procedure of recovery of tax simpler that the owner or the lessor is proceeded against as the "person primarily liable." The owner or lessor of the property is ''primarily'' required to satisfy the demand towards tax with right to recover it from the tenant, sub-tenant or the occupant. If the landlord or the owner is obliged to make payment of whole amount of tax inclusive of his own share and share of the tenant, sub-tenant or the occupant, the owner or lessor has to be conferred with power to recover the portion of tax payable by the tenant, sub-tenant or occupant who is actually enjoying the property and putting it to use for commercial or non-residential purpose. The legislature has taken note of the fact that a large number of properties in Metropolitan city of Calcutta are in occupation of tenants, sub-tenants or occupants on a comparatively small amount of rent or lease money. In such situation to impose entire burden of tax on the owner or lessor, would be inequitable, more so when the tenancy law does not allow increase in rent beyond a particular limit and the right of eviction of the landlord is restricted to the grounds under the Tenancy Act. By the impugned provisions of the Act, therefore, the legislature has thought of apportioning the tax burden between owner or the lessor as one party and the tenant, sub-tenant or occupier as the other parties. The whole amount of tax is recoverable from the lessor and may also be recovered from the tenant or sub-tenant through attachment of the rent. In case where the lessor or landlord has paid the whole tax including the portion of tax payable by the tenant or sub-tenant, the landlord has to be equipped with power to get himself reimbursed by recovery of the portion of tax paid by him on behalf of the tenant. Section 231 of the Act, therefore, creates fiction that the ''tax'' apportioned on the tenant would be treated as ''rent'' and would be recoverable as such. The word ''rent'' has not been defined in the tenancy law and this court has taken note of this legal position in the case of Puspa Sen Gupta v. Susma Ghose [, 1990 (2) SCC 651] which arose out of the provisions of Tenancy Act applicable to West Bengal. Rent is a compendious expression which may include lease money with service charges for water, electricity and other taxes leviable on the tenanted premises.

The provisions of the Tenancy Act merely enable the landlord to make a demand of arrears of rent and in default of the payment of the same sue the tenant for recovery of rent or eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent despite demand. The tenant can get protection against eviction on the ground of arrears of rent only if he makes requisite deposit of the arrears in the manner laid down in the provisions of the Tenancy Act. A provision to fictionally treat ''tax'' as ''rent'' is necessitated because in the absence of such a fiction in Section 231 of the Act, the landlord would be compelled to pay the whole amount of tax which is recoverable from him under the Act and would be left to an expensive and cumbersome remedy of filing a civil suit for recovery of such tax paid on behalf of the tenant, subtenant or occupant. Such a fiction is required to be incorporated under Section 231 of the Act because a private party cannot recover tax. If a lessor is obliged to pay a portion of tax leviable on the tenant, the landlord can recover the same not as ''tax'' but only as part of ''rent.'' The fiction created by the legislation in Section 231 to treat ''tax'' as ''rent'' has to be taken to its logical conclusion.....

50.... The portion of tax liable to be paid by the occupant or tenant is not directly recovered by the Corporation from them but is recoverable through the landlord and the landlord has been given right of reimbursement by demanding it from the tenant, subtenant or the occupant. For recovering such portion the tax payable by the tenant, sub-tenant or occupant, which has been paid by the landlord, is deemed to be "rent" only for the limited purpose of its recovery. The modes of recovery are by a demand notice under the Tenancy Act and if necessary by filing an eviction suit. Resort to remedy before the regular court is also not prohibited.....

Conclusion:

As a result of the discussion aforesaid, we find no vice in any of the provisions of the Act although we have considered it necessary to interpret the provisions harmoniously for better application of the provisions of the Act and the Tenancy Act. The various legal provisions assailed before us have been interpreted by us and our conclusions are as under:

(1) In view of specific provisions of the Act and as the provisions of the Act impose burden of tax to an appreciable extent on the tenant, sub-tenant and occupiers and the tax is liable to be recovered from them through the landlord or directly by attachment of rent or other coercive modes, the tenants, sub-tenants and occupants are entitled to an opportunity to participate in the process of valuation and assessment. They are entitled, therefore to written notices apart from public notice for assessment, revision of assessment or amendment of assessment of the ''consolidated rate'' or tax. It is also made clear that pursuant to the public notice or written notice, the returns submitted by the tenant, sub-tenant or occupier, with regard to determination of annual value shall be considered by the corporation. The same procedure would be followed in revision of the annual valuation.

(4) It is also made clear that to enable the tenant, sub-tenant or occupier as ''person liable'' to pay ''consolidated rate'' they would have a right to obtain necessary information on payment of requisite fee in accordance with Section 178 of the Act and Corporation authorities are legally bound to furnish such requisite information."

In addition, the petitioner has also relied upon the decision in "Nasiruddin and Others v. Sita Ram Agarwal" reported in , (2003)2 SCC 577, wherein it was observed -

"38. .... It is a well-settled principle that if an act is required to be performed by a private person within a specified time, the same would ordinarily be mandatory but when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time-frame, the same will be held to be directory unless the consequences therefor are specified. In Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 3rd edition, Vol.3 at p.107 it is pointed out that a statutory direction to private individuals should generally be considered as mandatory and that the rule is just the opposite to that which obtains with respect to public officers. Again, at p. 109, it is pointed out that often the question as to whether a mandatory or directory construction should be given to a statutory provision may be determined by an expression in the statute itself of the result that shall follow non-compliance with the provision."

It is also the petitioner''s contention that a strict view ought to be taken in the event of default in payment of rent by a tenant in the light of the Supreme Court''s decision in "E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (Dead) by Lrs. And Others. reported in , (2003) 1 SCC 123, in which it was observed -

"8. Admittedly the tenant did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8. The only submission that we advanced on behalf of the appellant was that since the deposit of rent had been made, a lenient view ought to be taken. We are unable to agree with this. The appellant failed to satisfy the conditions contained in Section 8. Mere refusal of the landlord to receive rent cannot justify the action of the tenant without following the procedure contained in the earlier sub-sections i.e. sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the eviction order passed against the appellant with respect to the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent needs no interference. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, does not call for interference. These appeals are dismissed. We are informed that the landlords have already taken possession of the suit premises, in pursuance of the High Court judgment."

As already noted, the contention of the petitioner is that the respondent/tenant defaulted in payment of "rent" which ought to have included the Municipal charges payable by him in terms of Section 5(8) of the WBPT Act 1997, and is therefore disentitled to claim any benefit under Section 7(2). The highlighted observations in "Calcutta Gujarati Education Society" (supra) have been relied upon to assert that it was the tenant''s own obligation to ascertain such Municipal charges from the authority, and to directly deposit the same as part of his "Rent", which he failed to do.

It however, needs to be remembered that the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980 and the decision "Calcutta Gujarati Education Society" (supra) only mention about the tenant''s entitlement/Right to independently ascertain the Municipal charges for the portion occupied by him. But no "obligation" as such has been imposed upon to him to do so, although he is undoubtedly bound by Section 5(8) of the WBPT Act to pay up the same. In case he fails to do so, the landlord who is ''primarily responsible'' to pay the municipal dues for the premises, is entitled to recover the proportional charges from the tenant for the portion under his occupation. It is to be noted that in any case according to the Municipal Act, the primary liability in this regard is on the "Lessor" i.e., the landlord, who in turn is entitled to recover the same from the tenant in case the latter does not ascertain or directly pay his proportional Municipal charges. It is admitted that in this case, the landlord had paid up all the municipal dues for the entire building as a single unit, although the respondent/tenant is only one of the several occupiers therein. If the tenant did not directly approach the Municipality to ascertain his proportional liability, he cannot be penalised for not exercising his right, as the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Act do not impose any statutory ''obligation'' upon him, even though the Municipality is authorised to recover its dues from either the owner or directly from the occupier in its discretion. The petitioner has not been able to place any decision before this Court in which any tenant was actually ordered to be evicted on account of his failure to "himself ascertain and pay up the Municipal charges or taxes".

It has been seen that the Ld. Court below had painstakingly gone through the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. This included the rent bill for the month of July 2012, which undisputedly was the last valid payment, and acceptance of rent by the landlord, since its claim is that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent for a period of ''three months'' being August to October 2012. The Court below had also taken note of the original rental agreement which was never formally modified by the parties in respect of the stipulation that the rent payable included the municipal charges. It thereafter went on to hold that the composite rental charges payable by the tenant were deemed to be inclusive of the municipal charges in the light of the documents on record. There is no apparent perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court for coming to this conclusion. In fact, even before this Court certain documents were placed on behalf of the petitioner/landlord as Annexure "A" collectively, to its written notes of arguments in pages 23 to 42. On going through the same, the following facts emerge -

"a) That originally the rent bills used to be issued by including the amounts of commercial surcharge and corporation tax separately, being Rent: Rs. 750/-, S. Charge: Rs. 93.25 and Corporation tax: Rs. 59.02p. (Pages 23-24];

b) That from April, 2000, when the respondent became a direct tenant, all components of rent including commercial surcharge and corporation tax were merged together and the landlord began issuing rent bills for a composite amount of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. (Pp. 26-28);

c) That From March, 2006, the rent was increased to Rs. 1,100/- p.m. and split up into two parts - Rent of Rs. 1,000/- plus Maintenance charges of Rs. 100/- (Page 30). As such, according to the respondent, only the maintenance charges were segregated, and the remaining components, i.e., the occupier''s share of the Corporation tax and Surcharge were kept included in the amount of rent;

d) That after service tax on rent became applicable, the same was also shown separately @ Rs. 142.75, apart from the maintenance charges @ Rs. 105/-, thus indicating that the tenant''s share of corporation tax and commercial surcharge remained included in the increased rental amount of Rs. 1,050/- (Rent Bill for February, 2009 - Page 38);"

The respondent therefore contends that in this manner the landlord had been issuing rent bills to him since October, 2007 without raising any separate bill for corporation tax and commercial surcharge since the very inception of his direct tendency in April, 2000. He has further drawn attention of the Court that for the undisputed month of July 2012, the uncontroverted rent bill for the last paid rent shows the figure at Rs. 1,298/- while the figures against the rows meant for property tax and surcharge have been kept blank with the sign ''___'' against them. As such according to the respondent, the figures of property tax and commercial surcharge were included in the rent amount and not separately bifurcated since admittedly the suit building as a whole is assessed as a single unit for which the landlord has paid the entire amount of property taxes, as the ''No Dues'' Certificate filed from its side in Court itself shows.

Hence according to the respondent, the landlord''s allegation of default in payment of property tax and commercial surcharge from the month of August, 2012 is itself an indirect admission that such property tax and surcharge were received from him till July, 2012, as the admitted rent bill for July, 2012 does not mention any separate figures for property tax and commercial surcharge. Further, since admittedly the landlords never raised any separate bill for commercial surcharge on the tenant, it means that the bill for July, 2012 is the composite rent bill inclusive of the amounts of property tax and commercial surcharge as well.

Now in the present case, admittedly the landlord/petitioner in its original eviction notice as well as the plaint had not specified the actual Municipal dues paid by it as against the liability of the defendant/tenant. The Ld. Court below had come to the conclusion that the Municipal Taxes in this particular case are covered within the agreed rent of Rs. 1050.00/- as mentioned in the bill particularly in the backdrop of the fact that in paragraph (b) of the original tenancy agreement of the tenant the original rent was Rs. 750.00/-inclusive of "Municipal Rents and Taxes" but not including the Corporation''s surcharges. The Ld. Trial Judge had also noted that there was no allegation in the plaint that the Municipal authority/Corporation had demanded any specified amount towards tax or surcharges for the premises occupied by the defendant. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff''s failure to mention the quantum of Municipal Taxes payable by the tenant either to the landlord or to the Municipal Authorities would only go to support the conclusion of the Ld. Court below that the amount of Rs. 1,298.00/- covers all the attributes of "Rent" in its broader sense, i.e., including the Municipal dues, which, in any case, were included in the original rent agreement, and the basic terms of which agreement were not expressly modified by the parties at any time later on.

The petitioner/landlord had not even taken any plea in the original plaint to the effect that at any time in the past before August 2012, the defendant had defaulted in payment of the Municipal Taxes/charges in respect of the building portion possessed by him. As such the assertion that the same amount of composite rent (Rs. 1298/-) which was valid and complete till the immediately preceding month rendered him a ''defaulter" from the very next month (August 2012) is unconvincing. In the present case the municipal charges were admittedly included in the composite rental amount by virtue of the original Tenancy agreement. However by virtue a subsequent amendment in respect of Section 5(8) of the Premises Tenancy Act, an obligation was cast upon the tenant to pay up his proportional share. The course to govern the arrangement in the wake of such amendment could have only been one out of two options. The parties could either have decided to continue with the earlier arrangement; But this was unlikely since the landlord in such situation would have been unnecessarily taking the tenant''s statutory liability upon himself. So the only other and more logical option would have been to specify the charges hitherto paid by the landlord on that account, and to thereafter modify the agreement suitably in order to specify whether the tenant henceforth would pay his proportional charges directly to the municipality, or through the landlord who, in any case remained ''primarily liable'' to pay the dues for the entire premises. But admittedly there was no formal arrangement between the parties on these lines in the wake of the amendment of Section 5(8). It would thus appear that the landlord is now trying to take an undue advantage of the subsequent amendment introduced in the WBPT Act by way of Section 5(8), without disclosing the amount allegedly paid by him in discharging the tenant''s proportional liability towards the Municipal dues. Consequently the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner do not help him in this case.

The other contention that a tenant is not entitled to get the benefit of protection simply because he has filed two separate applications under Sections 7(1) as well as 7(2) of the WBPT Act simultaneously is unconvincing. This is so because the Legislature has ensured that a tenant must have to promptly pay the rent at least at the rate admitted by him in the event of a dispute regarding the actual quantum, which can be determined later on under Section 7(2) after taking evidence of the parties. But till such time as the actual rent is determined, the tenant remains under a statutory obligation to keep on paying his admitted rent in terms of Section 7(1). So there is no scope whatsoever to hold that there is any inherent contradiction in simultaneously invoking Sections 7(1) as well as 7(2) of the WBPT Act by the tenant. This contention raised by the petitioner is therefore, also not of any help in this Revision.

Now it has been stipulated in Section 7(2) that after the tenant''s liability has been determined by the Court, he "shall, within one month from the date of such order, pay to the landlord the amount so specified in the order.." In the given circumstances, the petitioner/landlord would appear to have a somewhat legitimate grievance that the Ld. Court below ought to have directed the defendant to pay the arrears of rent directly to the landlord instead of depositing the same in Court. The respondent has however cited certain decisions coming from various coordinate Benches of this Court, in which the Trial Courts'' orders for "depositing the arrears in the Court" were not interfered with. In fact in disposing off C.O. No. 1991 of 2009 in the case of ''Ranjit Kumar Dutta v. Shyama Prasad Biswas'' a coordinate Bench of this Court had itself directed the tenant to "deposit" his dues by two instalments. As such, it cannot be said that the Ld. Court below had acted with any material irregularity by asking the tenant to "deposit" his dues, instead of directly paying them to the landlord, although the direction was not in a literal accordance with the statute. In any case, the tenant cannot be penalised for complying with the direction of the Ld. Court below.

To sum up therefore, this Court finds no merit in the Revisional Application which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Judge therefore stands affirmed.