ARABINDA NATH DAS Vs. MOHITOSH MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for Review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of this Court dated 12.2.2007. The Revisional Application bearing C.O. No. 3033 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Order No. 22 dated 21.5.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Contai in T.S. No. 199 of 1995 allowing thereby the application for local investigation filed by the defendant. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant for eviction from the disputed premises, for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The Revisional Application was disposed of holding that the learned Court below rightly allowed the application for local investigation and there was no ground to interfere with the order impugned. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed on 12.2.2007.

(2.) After the passing of the said judgment the petitioners of the Revisional Application has filed this Review Application. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the transferee landlords and the previous landlord was Sarbeswar Jana. It is contended that the O.P. is a tenant in A schedule property at a monthly rental Rs.80/- as inducted by Sarbeswar Jana and after the transfer of the suit premises to the present plaintiffs/petitioners the erstwhile owner served a notice upon the tenant opposite party informing him of such transfer and asked him to pay rent to the plaintiffs/petitioners, but, nothing was paid by the defendant towards the rent. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since it is a suit for eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act., the O.P. cannot take any plea and he is liable to be evicted. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has submitted the decisions reported in (2006)5 SCC 532 [Bhogadi Kannababu and others Vs. Vuggina Pydamma and others]; 1988(3) SCC 137 [Tej Bhan Madan Vs. II Additional District Judge and others].

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. herein submits that as per the averment made in the written statement, the O.P. was never a tenant under Sarbeswar Jana or the plaintiffs. It is contended that the shop of the O.P./defendant is situated in a different land appertaining to plot No. 233 and not on plot No. 101. The learned Counsel submits that the shop of the O.P. is situated on Government khas land and there is no ground to review the earlier order passed by this Court.