SUMANT CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. ANJALI GHATAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revisional application filed by the tenant defendants impugns an order No. 95 dated October 4, 1991 passed by the Assistant District Judge, First Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 42 of 1987 whereby in an application under section 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 filed by the tenants defendants they were found defaulters in payment of rent from February 1983 to May 1987 at the rate of Rs. 810-07 poise per month according to English Calendar and further they were made liable to pay interest accrued for the rents from August 1982 to January 1983 which were already lying deposited before the Court. The arrears were computed at Rs. 42,123.64 paise for February 1983 to May 1987 which they were directed to deposit along with interest at the rate of 8.33% per annum at a cumulative rate together with interests calculated al the aforesaid rate from the date of deposit of the rent from August 1982 to January 1983. They were given opportunity to pay in 15 equal installments, the first of installments being payable by 15th November, 1991 and thereafter month by month. The defendants petitioners were further directed to continue depositing current rents month-by-month @ Rs. 810-07 per month according to English Calendar as they are depositing in the Court below.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that their agent Gaurav Mishra always paid rent by cheque for the suit premises. Dr. Phanindranath Brahmachari, the previous landlord having died intestate leaving behind a will whereunder he bequeathed the suit premises to his two daughters, the present opposite parties in equal shares and having appointed his wife Smt, Gopa Rani Devi as sole executrix, the agent of your petitioners Sri Gaurav Mishra duly paid rent of the suit premises month by month by cheques to the said Smt. Gopa Rani Devi who accepted these payments without any demur against proper receipts. On or about May 4, 1981 the said Smt. Gopa Rani Devi obtained probate of the will of her deceased husband and on July 1, 1982 assented to the legacies in favour of the opposite parties. By a letter dated August 16, 1982 Smt. Gopa Rani Devi informed the petitioner No. 1 that her husband bequeathed the suit premises to their daughters, the opposite parties, and she obtained probate of her husband's will and requested the petitioner No. 1 to pay rent to the opposite parties on and from October 1, 1982 after attorning their tenancy to the opposite parties as owners/landladies. The petitioners remitted rents for the months of August and September 1982 by two separate cheques to Smt, Gopa Rani Devi who after receiving the said two cheques by a letter dated November 5, 1982 returned them to the petitioners giving out inter alia that in view of the earlier letter dated August 16, 1982 they should make payment of rent to the opposite parties from October 1, 1982. Thereafter the petitioners through their agent Sri Gaurav Mishra remitted rents for the months of August 1982 to October 1982 on 26.11.82 separately by cheques by registered post to the opposite parties in respect of their respective half shares at the rate of Rs. 405-04 p. and Rs. 405-03 p. per month, but both the opposite parties refused to accept the said cheques which were returned with the post man's endorsement "refused." The petitioners remitted rents for the month of February 1983 separately to the opposite parties in respect of their half shares in the said premises by two postal money orders by that too was refused by the opposite parties. The petitioners thereafter deposited with the Rent Controller rents for the month of February, 1983 onwards in respect of the suit premises separately to the credit of the opposite parties after apportioning the total rent in equal half shares at Rs. 405-04 p. and Rs. 405-03 p. respectively. That in February 1984 the opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 200 of 1984 in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Alipore praying for declaration that the petitioner No. 1 was their sole tenant in respect of the said premises and prayed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner No. 1 from subletting the suit premises and from making any constructions therein. In the plaint the opposite parties more or less admitted the position that C.P. Bhagat and G.C. Chaturvedi were residing in the suit premises as subtenants. In the said suit the opposite parties also applied for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner No. 1 from further subletting the premises whereupon the learned Munsif granted the said temporary injunction as prayed for by the opposite parties. The petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal thereform being Misc. Appeal No. 370 of 1984 and by an order dated 30th September 1986 the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore allowed the appeal and set aside the order of injunction, holding inter alia that the petitioners had prima facie the right to sublet the suit premises. Thereafter the opposite parties moved this Hon'ble Court in revision. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue Civil Order No. 3468 of 1986 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. On July 18, 1986 the opposite parties gave a notice to the petitioners through their learned advocate and asked them to quit and vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the month of August 1986. In the said notice the opposite parties alleged that your petitioners had illegally sublet the suit premises, violated Clauses (m), (6) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and defaulted in payment of rent and that the opposite parties reasonably required the suit premises for their own use and occupation. The opposite parties thereafter filed Title Suit No. 42 of 1987 against the petitioners in the First Court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Alipore praying for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the alleged grounds inter alia of default in payment of rent, unauthorised construction in the suit premises and for their own reasonable requirement. In the month of June 1987, the petitioners entered appearance in the said suit and duly filed an application under section 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 disputing the alleged amount of rent in arrears and prayed for determination of the exact amount of arrears and for permission to deposit the same in easy monthly installments. The petitioners also filed an application under section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and regularly continued to deposit the current rents of the suit premises month by month in the Trial Court from June 1987 onwards as required by law. On or about November 2, 1987 the opposite parties filed written objection to the said petitions under section 17(2) sad (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 reiterating that the petitioners defaulted in payment of rent as alleged by them and also contended that rents were not validly deposited by the petitioners with the Rent Controller because those deposits had not been preceded by any valid tender of rent to the opposite parties. The petitioners also filed their written statement in the suit denying the material allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the said Suit.

(3.) By the order dated October 4, 1991 the learned Assistant Distinct Judge, First Court at Alipore was pleased to dispose of the application under section 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 42,123-64 p. towards rent in arrears for the suit premises from February 1983 to May 1987 at the rate of Rs. 81007 p. per month. The learned Assistant District Judge also ordered to pay them interest on the petitioners' belated deposit of arrears of rent in court for the period August 1982 to January 1983. Over and above the said aggregate amount, the learned Trial Court imposed interest at the rate of 8.33% per annum at cumulative rate. The learned Assistant District Judge held that the petitioners had not validly tendered rent to the opposite parties for the month of February 1983 before depositing the rent for the month of February 1983 with the Rent Controller and as such the said deposit of rents for the months of February 1983 to May 1987 were all invalid deposits. The Trial Court also ordered the petitioners to redeposit the rents from February 1983 to May 1987 over again in court.