HAREKRISHNA MAITY Vs. DIPAK NARAYAN DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against order no.104 dated 7th June, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Paschim Medinipore in O.S. No.55/1998.

(2.) It appears that by the order impugned, ld. trial court disposed of the applications filed u/s.17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 filed by the petitioner defendant tenant by observing that there was relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant and that the rate of rent was Rs.500/ - p.m. and that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent since December, 1993. Mr. Bag, ld. advocate appearing for the petitioner tenant vehemently argues that the order impugned is not sustainable as the suit land was a vested land. He further submits that the petitioner filed an application before the appropriate authority for a long term lease of the suit property which was also sanctioned by the competent authority. He submits that though said order of sanction later on recalled but fact remains that it was a government land and that the O.P. plaintiff was not owner of the same and as such he had no right to claim to be landlord of the petitioner defendant. Mr. Bhattacharya appearing for the O.P. on the other hand submits that the petitioner defendant filed those applications admitting O.P. as his landlord though he raised some dispute about the extent of tenancy as well as rate of rent and also ownership of the O.P. landlord. He submits that both the parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective claims and that it came out that the petitioner defendant was a tenant under the O.P. plaintiff at a rental of Rs.500/ - p.m. in respect of the suit premises and that he defaulted in payment of rent since December, 1993. He submits that the petitioner being a tenant has no authority to question the authority of his landlord to collect rent or to deny the ownership of his landlord.

(3.) It appears from the order dated 19th July, 2011 that at the time of admission of this application there was a direction upon the petitioner tenant to make payment of arrear rent as per impugned order and the first instalment had to be paid by 22nd July, 2011 without fail and that other conditions imposed in that impugned order should remain in force and that all those payments would abide by the result of this application. As such no further order is called for regarding payment of arrear of rent or other payment.