RATNI DEVI AGARWALA Vs. JAYANTI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated 28.9.2001 which the learned trial Court has passed an order staying Title suit No. 23 of 1999 till disposal of previously instituted suit being Title suit No. 65 of 1982. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) The suit of 1982 is for recovery of possession and mesne profits from the tenant-defendant S.N. Agrawala, since deceased, on the ground of default and acts contrary to the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is alleged that for the reasons aforesaid the tenancy of S.N. Agrawala since deceased, was terminated under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 by a notice dated 26.4.1980. The tenant raised disputes with regard to quantum of rent payable by him and applied under sections 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 contending that he was liable to pay rent only at the rate of Rs. 1050/- per month. The said application was disposed of by an order dated 3.6.1993 by which the learned trial Judge held that the rent payable is respect of the demised premises was Rs. 1500/- per month. An opportunity was also granted to the tenant to pay the arrears by easy instalment. The tenant came up before this Court in revision against the said order dated 3.61993 which was registered as C.O. 1600 of 1993. During the pendency of the said revisional application before this Court the tenant S.N. Agarwala died on 8.8.1996. Heirs of S.N. Agrawala were substituted in the said pending revisional application by an order dated 24.4.1998 and by a further order dated 30.10.1998 the revisional application was disposed of by keeping intact the order passed by the learned trial judge with liberty to the tenant to challenge the propriety of the said order during the hearing of the suit.

(3.) Prior to 24.4.1998 the plaintiffs had also applied on 9.1.1998 for substitution of the heirs of S.N. Agarwala in the suit. By an order dated 10.2.1999 the learned trial judge however dismissed the application for substitution on the ground that it was filed out of time and recorded a formal order that "the suit of the plaintiff is hereby abated". On 10.2.1999 the plaintiff applied for setting aside the abatement. During the pendency of this application the heirs of S.N. Agarwala filed title suit No.23 of 1999 on 3.5.1999 claiming the following reliefs: