MALATI CHAKRABORTY Vs. GANESH CHANDRA SHYAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is at the instance of the defendants and it is directed against an order of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, alipore dated June 4, 1980 in Title Suit no. 229 of 1979.

(2.) THE opposite parties instituted the suit for eviction of the petitioners. It is alleged by the opposite parties that the petitioners were previously monthly tenants under Sm. Kamala Bala Sinha on a monthly rental of Rs. 55/- payable according to English Calendar month in respect of the suit premises. The opposite parties purchased the said property from Kamala Bala by a kobala dated august 12, 1977. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants were defaulters in payment of rent since June 1988. The plaintiffs also required the suit premises for their own use and-occupation and for building and rebuilding. The suit was instituted on May 11, 1979. On September 5, 1979 the defendants filed an application under Sections 17 (2)and 17 (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In the said application under Sections 17 (2) and 17 (2a) of the act the petitioners contended that they had paid all arrears of rent but the plaintiffs did not grant any receipt. The petitioners prayed for determination of the total arrears of rent and for allowing the petitioners to pay the sum at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month. The learned munsif after hearing the parties came to the finding that the period of arrears was from June 1968. The learned Munsif also came to the conclusion that the total amount was Rs. 8490/- including rs. 1120/- as statutory interest but as the defendants had paid Rs. 10/- in excess per month for the period from August 1979 to April 1980 a sum of Rs. 90/ was deducted and the defendants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 900/- in court on or before August 16, 1980 and go on depositing Rs. 100/- per month towards the amount due along with current rent. The second instalment was to be paid with the rent for August 1980. The defendants have challenged the said order dated June 4, 1980 in the present Rule.

(3.) MR. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for t4he petitioners, has raised several contentions before me. It has been urgued that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any time-barred rent and as such the learned Munsif was wrong in asking the petitioners to deposit time barred rent. In support of his argument Mr. Mukherjee has referred to the case of Raghunath Singh v. M/s Patel and Co. 65 C. W. N. 1093. The next contention of Mr. Mukherjee is that the plaintiffs are transferee-landlords and the date of transfer is August 12, 1977. The plaintiffs are thus not entitled to claim any rent accrued before the transfer and as such the petitioners' cannot be asked to deposit any rent which accrued before the transfer was made. Mr. Mukherjee has referred to the decision reported in 75 c. W. N. 478 Sri Rameswar Chcmd vs. Sadhan chandra Dey and Ors. The next contention of Mr. Mukherjee is that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs were not landlords prior to the purchase. This question should have been gone into before deciding the application under Sec. 17 (2)of the Act. In support of his argument mr. Mukherjee has relied upon the case reported in 65 C. W. N. 149 (Biswanath Roy vs. Annapurna Roy ). Mr. Mukherjee has finally argued that the plaintiffs purchased the property on August 12, 1977 and the present suit was instituted on May 11, 1979. The plaintiffs seek eviction of the defendants on the grounds mentioned in clauses (f) and (ff) of subsection (1) of Sec. 13 of the Act. The suit is barred in view of Sec. 13 (3a) of the Act. The suit is thus not maintainable. Mr. Mukherjee has referred to the case of Sudha Mukherjee vs. Sankar Chatterjee, 86 C. W. N. 841 in support of his contention.