MANICK BOSE Vs. SANDIP CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the Order No.224 dated December 3, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No.56 of 1994 thereby disposing of an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.56 of 1994 for recovery of possession against the opposite party on the ground of default, reasonable requirement etc. before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah.

(2.) THE defendant is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. It is the specific contention of the defendant that in January 1996, he went to see his ailing mother at Barasat and stayed there for some days keeping the premises in suit under lock and key. On his return, he found that the main entrance of the door of the property in suit was kept under lock and key fixed by the plaintiff. He at once requested the plaintiff to remove the padlock on the main entrance door but in vain. So, he prayed for suspension of rent, although, he is paying rent as per provisions of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

(3.) NOW, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties with regard to the premises in suit is not in dispute. The quantum of rent is not also a matter of dispute. It is not in dispute that the defendant is paying rent for the premises in suit in compliance with Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. NOW, the question to be decided if the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the orders for suspension of the rent for such long period.