PRADYUT ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. BONOLATA GHOSH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order No. 52 dated 31.10.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Sealdah in Ejectment Suit No. 268 of 2004.

(2.) The defendant/petitioner herein is a tenant in the suit premises. The O.Ps. instituted a suit for ejectment on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. The defendant entered appearance and filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 praying for determination of arrears of rent after determining the amount already paid as to electricity charges and for bringing water through water carrier. The petitioner was inducted in the suit premises at a rental of Rs.180/- with all amenities attached to the tenancy in the year 1977 including the supply of water to the tenanted portion, but, the opposite parties whimsically stopped the flow of water by putting a stopcock on the pipeline under their control on 11.1.2002 as a result of which the petitioner was compelled to bring the essential water from outside on payment of Rs.300/- per month to the water carrier. Such amount should be adjusted with the monthly rent. The O.P. No. 2 herein categorically stated in evidence-in-chief that corporation water is stored in the underground reservoir of the premises and each floor having hand pump for the user and there is sufficient water. But in the criminal case bearing No. C/592/2002 in the Court of learned J.M., 5th Court, Sealdah against the wife of the petitioner, the O.P. No. 1 deposed in her evidence that there is no water in the house and water was brought from outside through water carrier. The said deposition of the O.P. No. 1 in the criminal proceeding has been marked as Exhibit 5, 5/1 & 5/2. The petitioner filed an application on 09.8.2007 for recalling him as witness to produce the documents showing payment of charges paid to the water carrier in connection with the application under Section 7(2) of the Act. But the learned Court below was pleased to reject the said prayer.

(3.) The petitioner has further stated in this application that he has an electric meter in his own name. The other electric meter which was standing in the name of the predecessor of the landlord was disconnected due to non-payment of bills. At that time the total electricity of the premises was consumed from the petitioners meter and the O.Ps assured that the said amount of Rs.6,730/- approximately would be adjusted with the monthly rent of the petitioner. But the O.Ps. refused to adjust the same. The petitioner paid monthly rent from September to December, 1990 and January 1991 but no rental bill was granted to that effect. The petitioner sent a letter through his learned advocate to the O.Ps. on 08.6.1992 which was exhibited as (Exhibit 4). But the O.Ps. did not send any reply against that letter. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner started depositing the monthly rent with the Rent Controller from May, 1995 onwards.