PROSENJIT MUHURI Vs. GITA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arose out of order dated 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, 3rd Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Sealdah in Ejectment case No. 1/2004.

(2.) IN the background of this proceeding the fact in a nutshell is that the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment being Ejectment suit No. 1/2004 against the petitioner before the learned Additional Rent Controller, 3rd Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Sealdah on the ground of default in payment of monthly rent of Rs. 235.00 payable according to the English Calendar month since August, 2000. The petitioner on receipt of summons of the said suit appeared therein with a view to contesting and filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) stating inter alia that he is not a defaulter as alleged and has deposited monthly rent since April, 2000 till May 2004 in the Office of Rent Controller, Barracpore vide HRC No. 168/2001 and thereafter from June, 2004 has deposited monthly rent in the learned court below. As per usual practice and understanding with the Opposite Party the petitioner used to make payment of monthly rent to the Opposite Party for two or three months at a time and the Opposite Party accepted the same but for the purpose of filing the present suit she denied to receive the rent. As a result, the petitioner not finding any alternative deposited the same in the Office of Rent Controller, Barrackpore after the monthly rent was tendered by him to the Opposite Party. After receipt of the summons, the petitioner filed an application before the learned court below under Section 7(1) of the said Act praying for permission to deposit the current rent and prayed for permission to deposit the arrear rent from May 2004 by instalment.

(3.) NOW , the point for consideration is if the impugned order suffers from any infirmity and calls for interference or not. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court should have considered the provisions made in Section 22 of the said Act of 1997 as amended and the learned Court below on misconception of law directed the petitioner to deposit rent for 59 months. From the order sheet it would be clear that the petitioner is not a defaulter and further it was contended that after refusal by the landlord, the petitioner deposited rent with the Rent Controller and is going on with the same.