MAMATA SAHA Vs. SANTOSH SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order dated June 25, 4th 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.146 of 1998 thereby disposing of an application under Sections 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on contests by holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.146 of 1998 for eviction against the defendant / opposite party herein in respect of the premises in suit on the ground, inter alia, default and reasonable requirement. The plaintiff has contended that she had purchased the premises in suit from the original owners by a deed of sale dated February 10, 1993.

(3.) THE contention of the plaintiff is that after the purchase of the premises in suit from the zamindars by a Deed of Sale dated February 10, 1993, she became the owner of the premises in suit. She made due attornment in 1993 and thereafter, the defendant / opposite party herein paid rent to him from 1993 to May 1997 directly. The defendant has contended that the premises in suit is a thika property and as such, the defendant is a direct tenant under the State of West Bengal. The plaintiff has denied such contentions. What I find from the materials on record that after the purchase by the plaintiff, attornment had been done and the defendant paid rents to the plaintiff from 1993 to May 1997 and thereafter, according to him, when the plaintiff refused to accept the rent, the defendant had deposited rent from June 1997 to June 1998 with the Rent Controller. The defendant has also contended that on June 18, 1998 Angur Bala issued a letter to the defendant claiming to be the thika tenant of the structure and she demanded arrears of rent and such letter has been marked Ext.4 in the 17(2) matter. As per defence version, Angur Bala collected rent from the defendant from 1985 to February 1988 marked Ext.1 series and as such, when Angur Bala demanded rent subsequently, he stopped making payment to the plaintiff. Therefore, from the admission of the defendant, I find that after February 1988, Angur Bala did not claim any rent from the defendant in respect of the premises in suit.