ANWAR HUSSAIN Vs. RAJA MOHAMMED AMIN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application, at the instance of the defendant no.5 in the ejectment suit is directed against two orders, being order no.13 dated November 17, 2016 and order no. 15 dated February 14, 2017, respectively passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.345 of 2015.

(2.) By the first impugned order dated November 17, 2016 the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the present petitioner and the defendant no.4 under Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to "the Act of 1997"). By the second impugned order dated February 14, 2017 the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner and the defendant no. 4 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code"), together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the present revisional application are that the plaintiff opposite parties have filed the suit, for eviction of the petitioner and the proforma opposite party nos.1 to 4 from shop no. 3 on the ground floor of premises no. 22, Madan Mohan Burman Street , Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"), inter alia, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement. It is the plaint case that since July, 2007 the defendants defaulted in payment of rent of Rs. 250/-, per month. After entering appearance in the suit, in the month of August, 2015 the present petitioner and the defendant no.4 filed an application under Section 7 (1) of the Act of 1997 praying for, deposit of the rent of the suit property for the month of September, 2015 in the Court. They claim to have been depositing the rent of the suit property in the learned Court below from the month of September, 2015. The present petitioner and the defendant no.4 also filed an application in the suit under Section 7 (2) of the Act of 1997 for determination of arrear rent of the suit property, if any. In the said application no dispute was raised with regard to either the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or the amount of monthly rent payable for the suit property. The present petitioner and the defendant no.4 stated that from the month of January, 2008 to March, 2013 the rent tendered by them to the plaintiffs were not accepted and from April, 2013 to August, 2015 they deposited the rent for the suit property in the office of the Rent Controller of Kolkata. They, however, filed the said application without any deposit of the admitted arrear rent for the months of January, 2008 to March, 2013. The plaintiffs opposite parties contested the said application. They contended that inasmuch as the defendants, along with the said application did not deposit the admitted arrear rent for the period from January, 2008 to March, 2013 the mandatory requirement under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 was not fulfilled and the said application was not maintainable. By the order dated November 17, 2016 the learned Court below upheld the said contention of the plaintiffs and rejected the application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997. Without assailing the said order dated November 17, 2016 before this Court in revisional jurisdiction, the said defendants filed an application before the learned Court below under Section 151 of the Code for deposit of the admitted arrear rent together with statutory rate of interest. Along with the said application, the present petitioner and the defendant no.4 also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 543 days for deposit of admitted arrear rent from January, 2008 to March, 2013. The plaintiffs opposite parties also contested the said applications and raised objection to the maintainability of the application under Section 151 of the Code. By the second impugned order dated February 14, 2017 the learned Court below rejected both the said applications filed by the present petitioner and the defendant no.4 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as well as the application under Section 151 of the Code. As mentioned earlier, both the said orders dated November 17, 2016 and February 14, 2017 passed by the learned Court below have been assailed by the present petitioner alone in this revisional application.