SATKARI GHOSHAL Vs. TAPAN KUMAR CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the defendant in a suit for eviction. An application under Section 7(2), West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 filed by him has been disposed of by the learned trial Judge by her order dated October 29, 2011. THE learned Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner is a defaulter in payment of rent from December, 2004 till September, 2011 @ Rs. 100/- per month in respect of the shop room occupied by him and, therefore, is in arrears in a sum of Rs. 8,200/-. A direction was issued for payment of the said sum together with statutory interest by December 13, 2011. Liberty was also given to the petitioner to withdraw deposits made by him on account of rent for the period in question in the office of the Rent Controller in accordance with law.

(2.) THE said order dated October 29, 2011 is impugned in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ACCORDING to him, the learned Judge in the trial Court erred in holding that the rent in respect of the suit shop room was payable according to English calendar month and that rent deposited by the petitioner for the period in question in the office of the Rent Controller according to Bengali calendar month are invalid deposits. Relying on the decisions of this Court reported in 61 CWN 467 (Carrara Marble & Tarrazo Co. Ltd. v. Charuchandra Guha), AIR 1971 Calcutta 383 (Rameshwar Chand & anr. v. Sadhan Chandra Dey & ors.), AIR 1974 Calcutta 362 (Lalbhai Ramjibhai v. A.V. Seth) and 87 CWN 5 (Saroj Kumar De & ors. v. Radharani Saha & ors.) it was contended that there being no agreement between the landlord and the tenant in respect of alteration of the month of tenancy from Bengali to English calendar and there being no evidence to the effect that rent for the broken period of the particular calendar month was either paid or adjusted and rent was paid from month to month according to English calendar, finding of the learned Judge that the rent in respect of the suit shop room was payable to the landlords according to English calendar is perverse and, therefore, the deposits that had been made by the petitioner in the office of the Rent Controller ought not to have been treated as invalid. ACCORDINGly, it has been prayed that the order impugned be set aside.