PRADIP CHATTERJEE Vs. SMT. IRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned dated 31st Aug., 2010 passed by the learned 3rd Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in eviction suit No.38 of 2007 allowing the application of the opposite party/defendant under Sec. 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 holding that the deposit made by the opposite party/defendant for the period starting from March, 2007 to July, 2010 in respect of one room situated at ground floor of 28/1, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta- 06 as valid deposits keeping aside the dispute regarding the address of the premises.

(2.) Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the plaintiff/petitioner submits that the claim and contention of landlord/plaintiff/petitioner is that the opposite party is the tenant in respect of one room at ground floor of premises No.28, Dhiren Sen Sarani, Calcutta-06. The opposite party/defendant knowing fully well that he is a tenant in respect of one room on the ground floor of 28, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta-06 deliberately and intentionally deposited rent for the aforementioned period in respect of one room situated at ground floor of 28/1, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta-06.

(3.) Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that learned Court below curiously enough did not decide in respect of which premises opposite party is a tenant and made a remark that the disputes as regards the address of the tenancy is kept aside but it was tentatively hold by the concerned court that the deposit made with the Rent Controller for the period starting from Sept., 1986 to June, 1989, Oct., 1994 to April, 1995 are all valid deposits. Learned Court erroneously recorded that this a tentative finding and not a final form of decision.