ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. DILIP KUMAR SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner / tenant challenging order No.87 dated 10.08.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No.23 of 1995. By the impugned order learned Trial Court disposed of the petition under Section 17 (2) (2A) (B) of W.B.P.T. Act by adjudicating that defendant was a tenant under O.P. /Plaintiff, and that rate of monthly rent was Rs.30/- per month, and that defendant was defaulter in payment of rents from January, 1992 to June, 2005 and was required to deposit said total arrear rent together with interest in five installments. Being aggrieved with said order the instant revisional application was filed alleging inter alia that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner /defendant namely Brahmadeb Singh was the original tenant under Jatindra Nath Bhaduri in respect of the said premises at a rental of Rs.35/- per month and that after death of Jatindra Nath Bhaduri his heir and legal representatives Sri Kalyan Kumar Bhaduri used to realize rent and that after demise of original tenant Brahmadeb Singh on 31.07.1990 his heirs and legal representatives including present petitioner became tenants in common and that on or about 20.12.1991 Kalyan Kumar Bhaduri issued a letter of attornment to the petitioner requesting him to attorn his tenancy under one Smt. Kamala Das with a direction to pay rent to her and that thereafter the tenants received one letter from one Mrs. Krishna Saha directing them to pay rent to plaintiff/ respondent Dilip Kumar Shaw. That on 01.02.1992 the plaintiff claimed to have purchased a part of the building and that in view of dispute of ownership the petitioner tenant could not decide whom to pay rent and that later on O.P. / Plaintiff has filed the suit for ejectment being Title Suit No.23 of 1995 and that present petitioner and his brother appeared in the said suit, filed written statement and also filed an application under Section 17(2) (2A) (B) for determining as to whether plaintiff was the landlord or not. It was also averred in the said petition that though the rate of rent was Rs.44/- per month but plaintiff claimed the rent to be Rs.30/- per month and there was also forcible eviction from a portion of tenancy in September, 1996 and hence there should have been abatement of rent for such dispossession from some portion of tenancy and determination of the same by the Court and also for installments for payment of arrear rents, if any.

(2.) During hearing learned Advocate Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya for the petitioner /defendant has submitted that learned Trial Court referred to some stray lines of the petitioner /defendant /tenant in his deposition and decided O.P. / plaintiff as his landlord on admission and that rate of rent was decided to be Rs.30/- per month without any justification and that all rents, deposited by defendant / tenant in the Rent Control and / or in Court at the rate of Rs.44/- per month, were declared invalid on account of non-payment of rent from January, 1992 to June, 1993 and asked defendant / tenant to pay entire rent from January, 1992 to June, 2005 together with interest in five equal monthly installments.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner/defendant/tenant has submitted that the impugned order of learned Trial Court was not sustainable in law as he did not spell out the reasons for holding monthly rent at the rate of Rs.30/- per month and also for holding defendant/tenant defaulter since January, 1992 though the period of default, if any, was only from January, 1992 to June, 1993.