BASUDEB DEY Vs. PURNA CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order no.81 dated November 23, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Katwa in Title Suit No.103 of 2005 thereby disposing an application under Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by directing the defendant to deposit arrears of rent for 96 months @ Rs.80 per month along with 10% interest thereon by two instalments.

(2.) The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for eviction of the defendants/petitioners from the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. In that suit, the defendants/petitioners appeared and filed an application under Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 contending, inter alia, that they are tenants in respect of the suit property at a rental of Rs.80 per month payable to Bengali calendar month. They have paid the rents to the landlord directly and after appearance in the suit, they have been depositing the current rent in the suit. However, they have contended that they are not defaulters in payment of rent. They have also expressed that if there is any arrears of rent, they may be permitted to deposit the arrears of rent by instalments.

(3.) Both the parties adduced evidence over such application and its objection, and thereafter on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and on hearing argument thereon, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has passed the impugned order in the manner as indicated above. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the defendants/petitioners have preferred this application. Ms. T. Chanda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that in fact there is no arrears of rent as per evidence on record. The original tenant died and after death of the original tenant, the plaintiff/opposite party accepted the brother of the original tenant as their tenant and the present petitioners are now in possession of the suit property and so they are the tenants in respect of the suit property. There is no dispute on that. He contends that as per evidence on record there is no arrear of rent at all but the learned Trial Judge has come to a wrong conclusion that since no rent receipt has been filed, it shall be deemed that the defendants/petitioners are defaulters in payment of rent since Magh 1404 B.S., i.e., for 96 months. Thereafter, the current rents are being deposited in the Court. Such findings are contrary to the evidence on record.