SUPRIYA PANJA Vs. MANJU BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present hearing arises out of an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is directed against an order 6.11.2001 passed by the Rent Controller, Bishnupur in the district of Bankura, in a proceeding registered as Case No. 1/BPTA/2000.

(2.) In the proceeding before the learned Rent Controller, respondent of this proceeding Smt. Manju Banerjee made a prayer for recovery of possession of a tenanted portion of a house at Mutukganj, Bishnupur, P.O.+P.S. Bishnupur in the district of Bankura from the admitted tenant of the house. The respondent filed the proceeding, inter alia, alleging that she has inherited the house from her mother where the petitioner of the present proceeding is a tenant in respect of a portion of the said house, that she requires the house for her own use and occupation as well as occupation of the members of her family including her son a qualified doctor who requires the suit premises for opening his chamber. She has further contended that her husband Commodore, Parimal Banerjee, a member of Air Force, who at the relevant point of time was posed as Joint Director of Interim Test Range, Chandipur, Orissa would retire shortly. In that background, the respondent initiated the proceeding for recovery of possession of the suit premises under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller in the impugned order rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner of the present proceeding that petitioner's husband has a reasonably suitable accommodation in Calcutta where they reside by observing that the certificate issued by the authority concerned, under the law would be a conclusive evidence to establish that the respondent of the present proceeding had requirement for the suit premises. With this finding he directed the present petitioner to vacate the suit premises within a specified time. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has come up before this Court, challenging such order. The only point for my consideration here is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the authority concerned is tainted with any illegality and therefore should be interfered with or not.