JAGANATH KARMAKAR Vs. MATRIKA MOHAN SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In the instant revisional application the defendant in Title Suit 94 of 1987 pending in the Court of Munsif, Additional Court, Jangipur challenged the validity, legality and propriety of the order allowing the prayer of the opposite parties/plaintiffs under section 17(3) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the present revisional application are stated as follows :- The plaintiffs/opposite parties brought the aforementioned suit in the court of the Munsif at Jangipur, which on transfer to the Additional Court of Munsif has been registered as T.S. 94 of 1987 against the petitioner for the khas possession of the suit premises by evicting him therefrom and for other reliefs. It is stated in the plaint that one Sripati Nath Sarkar, who has the owner of the premises sold it in favour of the plaintiffs under the strength of 4 sale deeds. The petitioner was a monthly tenant even prior to the purchase by the plaintiffs on a rental of Rs. 100/- per month according to the Bengali calendar months. The predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs/opposite parties gave oral notice about the said sale. But when the petitioner even after the notice did not pay rent, the plaintiffs were obliged to file the suit for ejectment on the ground of bonafide use and occupation, building and rebuilding and default in payment of rent.

(3.) The petitioner stated, inter alia, in his written statement that there was no legal, valid and sufficient notice prior to the filing of the suit. Sambhu Sarkar, who was the admitted owner of the premises allowed the petitioner to occupy the premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 90/but used not to pass receipt on the pretext that is case such receipt was issued to the petitioner, the municipality might enhance the tax and other dues. The petitioner submitted an application under section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, inter alia, challenging the rate of rent as well as the period of default The learned Munsif by his order dated 28th March, 1988 determined the rate or rent at Rs. 90/- and not at Rs. 100/- and further found the total arrears as Rs. 612.0/- and further directed the petitioner to pay the said amount in 20 monthly instalments together with statutory interest accrued thereon. It is submitted by the petitioner that while passing the order no sufficient care was taken by the Munsif to determine the rate of interest nor determined the monthly instalments payable by him. Thus no specific order directing the petitioner at what rate the amount was to be payable month by month on instalment basis was indicated.