MD SAHAUDDIN AHAMED Vs. SK JAMIRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated June 21, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Third Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.128 of 2004 thereby directing the plaintiffs to file the original rent receipts.

(2.) The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted the said suit being Title Suit No.128 of 2004 praying for a decree of eviction on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, sub-letting, addition, alteration and etc. against the defendant/opposite party before the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Third Court, Howrah. The defendant/petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. After appearance, the defendant filed an application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act was disposed of by the learned Trial Judge and then a revisional application was preferred by the petitioner. That revisional application being C.O. No.533 of 2007 was disposed of by this Bench directing the learned Trial Judge to hear out the matter afresh within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing. At that time, the defendant filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. directing the plaintiff to produce rent receipts for the period from December, 1984 to December, 2004. That application was allowed. Being aggrieved by that order, another revisional application was preferred by the petitioner and then by an order, the Hon'ble Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. filed by the defendant expeditiously preferably within a period of six months and thereafter, to dispose of the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff has specifically stated that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent from January, 1993 to December, 2004. The defendant contended that the rent receipts granted by the father of the plaintiff were taken back by the plaintiff and that he did not return the same to him. That is why, he filed the application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. directing the plaintiff to produce the rent receipts for the period from December, 1984 to December, 2004. At the time of disposal of the revisional application being C.O. No.3321 of 2008, the Hon'ble Justice Biswanath Samaddar (one of the Hon'ble Judges of this Hon'ble Court) has clearly indicated first the learned Trial Judge shall come to a conclusion that the documents called for are in possession or power of the plaintiff. Thereafter, he shall give necessary direction to the plaintiff to produce the same. Moreover, the rents due, as claimed by the plaintiff, is from January, 1993 to December, 2004. But, inspection of those documents was prayed for from December, 1984 to December, 2004.