MAYA SINHA Vs. KARUNAMOY DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under section 115 C.P.C. is directed against order No. 57 dated 1.10.82 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Asansol, in T.S. 105 of 1979 allowing the opposite party defendant's application under sections 17 (2) and 17 (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and directing that the amount of Rs. 1590.00 towards repairing costs which was borne by the defendant will be adjusted towards arrear monthly house rents from Pous, 1384 B.S. to Magh 1387 B.S. for Rs. 1140.00 and for fifteen subsequent monthly rents which is Rs. 450.00.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition may be briefly stated as follows - In the plaintiffs' suit for eviction of the tenant, opposite party defendant filed an application under sections 17 (2) and 17 (2)AO of the Premises Tenant Act alleging that the opposite party defendant requested the plaintiff-petitioner to effect sufficient repairs. additions and alterations of the suit premises as it was in a dilapidated condition but to no effect. An accident took place due to fall or beam and tiles from the roof as a result, grandson of the defendant expired. On receipt of information of the said accident, Executive Officer of the Ranigunj Municipality sent notices to both the parties for repairing the suit premises. It was agreed that the suit premises would be repaired at the cost of the defendant opposite party and its expenditure would be adjusted towards monthly house rents. With these allegations the opposite party defendant prayed for adjusting the amount of Rs. 1590.00 spent by him towards repairing costs of the suit premises to be adjusted towards the arrears of monthly house rents. The petitioner resisted the said application contending inter alia, that the opposite party-defendant never asked the petitioner to make any repairs, that there was absolutely no agreement that the defendant would undertake repairing works and costs would be adjusted against arrear house rent and that the rent was admittedly due from Pous 1384 B.S. and a petition under sections 17(2) and 17(2A) is not maintainable without depositing arrear of rent.

(3.) Before the learned Munsif both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The learned Munsif on a consideration of the whole evidence arrived at the finding that the suit premises was in a dilapidated condition and it was very urgently required for repairing and that the defendant got those repairs done by Government contractor and got a bill for Rs. 1590.00 submitted by the said person and he got cash payment of the amount of Rs. 1590.00 that the said amount would be adjusted towards the arrear rent of the suit premises since pous 1384 B.S. and subsequent monthly rents as there was actually an agreement entered into between the landlord and the tenant defendant that such costs of repairs would be adjusted from rent.