KUNAL KRISHNA DEB Vs. SAJAL CHOWDHURY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the property forming subject matter thereof is the petitioner in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is directed against order no. 100 dated August 29, 2011 passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court. By the impugned order, an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 filed by the petitioner was disposed of. He was found to be a defaulter in payment of rent for hundred months @ Rs. 200/- per month and, accordingly, was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- in respect of the arrears from April 2003 to July 2011 together with statutory interest of Rs. 2400/-. The challans produced by the petitioner in support of his claim that he had paid rent @ Rs. 200/-per month right from May 2003 till August 2011 were considered to be invalid deposits on the ground that "the challans filed by the petitioner/opposite party are not in sequence as per the provisions of the Act...".

(2.) Mr. Raut, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in holding the petitioner to be a defaulter for hundred months. According to him, the order does not with any degree of clarity specify as to why the challans filed by the petitioner showing deposit of rent in the trial Court right from May 2003 till August 2011 were considered to be invalid. The reasoning given by the learned Judge that the challans are not in sequence, according to him, hardly reflects application of mind. He, accordingly, prayed for an order to set aside the order impugned and for a direction on the learned Judge to re-consider the application under Section 7(2) of the Act in accordance with law.

(3.) Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the plaintiff/opposite party contended that the learned Judge was right in holding the petitioner to be a defaulter and that the deposits allegedly made by him from May 2003 to July 2011 are invalid. According to him, the petitioner admitted that rent tendered by him for April 2003 by cheque was dishonoured and it is also an undisputed fact that subsequently there was no attempt on his part to make good the deficiency. This leads one to the inevitable conclusion that rent for the month of April 2003 was never paid. Additionally, rent for May 2003 to August 2004 @ Rs. 200/- per month totaling Rs. 3200/- was paid by him on August 16, 2004 after receipt of summons on August 12, 2004 without any interest, as required by Section 7(1)(a) of the Act. In view of clear breach of statutory provisions committed by the petitioner, all subsequent deposits were invalid and the learned Judge, according to him, was right in passing the impugned order. While reiterating that the impugned order does not require interference by this Court exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, he prayed for dismissal of the revisional application.