PROMILA MOOKHERJEE Vs. KRISHNA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant revisonal application has been directed against the order dated 6-3-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore, whereby the application under Section 17(2) (2A) & (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was allowed.

(2.) In moving the revisional application, Mr. Ashis Bagchi, learned senior counsel has submitted that since no service was extended in the suit premises, the trial Court should not have directed the petitioner to pay the service charge to the tune of Rs. 400/- per month in favour of the landlord. Citing the case of Anita Das Gupta v. A. C. Sett, reported in 1984 (88) C. W. N. 242, it is submitted that if the service charges are really independent of the tenancy, it will not be deemed to be part of the rent. The true test would be to find out whether the services which are charged for are for the independent service rendered and enjoyed not as part of the tenancy. Since such independent services have not been provided, the landlord is not entitled to get service charge from the tenant, as contended by Mr. Bagchi.

(3.) Challenging the quantum of arrear rent, Mr. Bagchi has submitted that the amounts spent by the tenant for drawing water through a "Vari" ought to have been adjusted against the rent. Notwithstanding the furnishing of the receipts showing payment to the "vari", the trial Court rejected the prayer for adjustment of the rent. Had these aspects been taken into consideration, the trial Court would not have fixed the quantum of arrear rent to the tune of Rs. 66,000/-, as contended by Mr. Bagchi.