GOPAL DALMIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the Revisional Application has challenged the legality of the Order No. 92 dated 17. 12. 85 passed by the learned First Additional Munsif at Alipore, 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 68 of 1985 by which order the learned munsif held that the petitioner 'was a defaulter in payment of rent from April 1980 to February 1982 at the rate of Rs. 550/-per month payable according to English Calendar, i. e. for 2 3 months total arrears of rents amounting to Rs. 12,650/- and he was to pay the said amount with statutory interest of Rs. 2050/- within the time specified in the said order. By the said order the leaned Munsif also disposed of the petitioner's application under section 17 (2) and 17 (2a) (b) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(2.) THE landlord/opposite party instituted Title suit no. 437 of 1980 in the 2nd Court of the learned Munsif at Alipore, 2 4-Parganas against the petitioner for his eviction from the suit premises inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rents since April 1980 and also on the ground of reasonable requirement for the own use and "occupation of the landlord/ opposite party and her family. The case as made out by the landlord/opposite party in the plaint inter alia was that she was the owner of the suit premises and the petitioner was a monthly tenant under her in respect; thereof at a rental of rs. 5 50/- per month payable according to the English Calendar. The opposite party was living in United Kingdom along with her husband and sons and as such she had empowered M/s. "talbot and Company to look after her property in India including the suit premises and also the collect rent from the petitioner; that subsequently she had cancelled the power given by her in favour of M/s. Talbot and Company and asked the said company not to receive any rent from the petitioner and the said fact of cancellation of the authority was also intimated to the petitioner; that rent till March 1980 was collected by M/s. Talbot and Company from the petitioner and thereafter the said company stopped collecting the rent from the petitioner; that as the family of the opposite party would shortly come over to India and reside permanently here in the suit promises the same was required for her own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of her family members; that in March 1980 when the opposite party came to India for a short period she requested the petitioner to vacate the suit, premises but the petitioner refused to vacate.

(3.) THE petitioner only entered appearance and contested the suit and filed his written statement denying and disputing the case as made out by the opposite party in the plaint. In the written statement the petitioner had stated inter alia, that by the purported cancellation of the Power of Attorney in favour of M/s. Talbot and Company the opposite party wanted to make the petitioner a discounter in payment of rent as there was none in India who could collect the rent from the petitioner on behalf of the opposite party and he also could not tender the rent in respect of the suit premises to the opposite party because of the Foreign Exchange regulation and as a matter of fact inspite of his best effort, the petitioner could not collect the names of any person or persons within India who could collect the rent from the petitioner and as such rent could not be paid inspite of the best desire of the petitioner and he also could not deposit the rent with the Rent Controller as the rent could not be sent to the opposite party in United kingdom by money order and there was none in India to whom such tender could be made.