MAMATA SINGHA ROY Vs. ARUN BENERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court does not agree with the proposition of law sought to be laid down by the Trial Court that the application filed by the petitioners is hit by the principles of res judicata. The principles of res judicata can be attracted where an issue involved in the earlier suit is directly and substantially an issue in the later suit and have been finally decided. The misconception as to the applicability of the principles of res judicata is evident and apparent. This Court, however, does not entertain to interfere with the impugned order as both the Courts below have found that the petitioners were never catered with the supply of water in the suit -premises. There is a remnant of the pipelines, which does not suggest that there was ever a supply of water therein. It has come out that since the inception of tenancy the petitioners were not catered with the supply of water in the suit -premises and, therefore, cannot seek an order compelling the landlord to supply water at the suit -premises.

(2.) The conduct of the petitioners is evident that they do not want the suit to be posted at the peremptory board. The suit was instituted way back in the year 1987, when an application is taken out for an order to supply water at the suit premises. The amenities, which are not attached to the tenancy since its inception, cannot be directed to be attached by the order of the Court.

(3.) The learned advocates appearing for the respective parties could not throw light on the fact whether the petitioners claim suspension or abatement of the rent in an application under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for non -supply of water or for expenditure being made to bring the water at the suit -premises. The conduct does not suggest that the petitioners are very much serious in asserting their right to have the supply of water at the suit -premises. It is only to delay the disposal of the eviction suit such applications are taken out and the Trial Court, in my opinion, has not committed any illegality in rejecting the same.