MONORANJAN SAHA Vs. RUBI SANTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dtd. 20/2/2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Chandannagore, has been assailed herein by filing application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the order impugned learned court below has rejected defendant's application under Sec. 7 (1) and (2) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

(2.) Petitioners case is that he is the defendant/tenant and the opposite party herein is the plaintiff/landlady, who filed aforesaid suit interalia for eviction, mense profit against petitioner herein. The petitioner submits that after receiving summon, he appeared before the court below and filed the application under Sec. 7(1) of the Act of 1997 permitting interalia for depositing current monthly rent and also filed another application under Sec. 7(2) of the Act of 1997, within statutory period, stating that the petitioner/defendant had paid rent for the month of April 2014 without the grant of rent receipt from the plaintiff/opposite party and thereafter he had sent rent for the month of May 2014 for the tenanted premises, through money order which was refused by the plaintiff/opposite party on 13/6/2014 and there is bonafide dispute regarding arrears of rent and for which petitioner referred the matter before the court below for determining of actual arrear rent payable by the defendant/tenant to the plaintiff/landlady. Defendant also filed written statement in the said suit, wherein he has made same submission regarding payment of arrear rent. He further contended that plaintiff/landlady used to issue rent receipt once in a year i.e. in the month of March, every year for renewal of the licence of his business. The plaintiff/landlady had lastly handed over rent receipt dtd. 20/3/2014 to the defendant after the payment of monthly rent.

(3.) Petitioner further submits that the opposite party had field written objection against the petitioner's said applications under sec. 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act of 1997 and both the parties adduced evidence in connection with said two applications. In the cross examination, the plaintiff/opposite party admitted that rent receipt book is lying with her and she further admitted that she refused to accept rent sent through money order, for the month of May 2014. After hearing both the parties learned court below rejected the defendant's aforesaid applications observing that the provisions of Sec. 7(1) (b) of the Act of 1997 is inflexible and unexpandable and as such he has no other option but to reject the said applications.