BISHNU CHARAN MUKHERJEE Vs. BASUDEV BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, Third Court, Howrah, in connection with a suit for ejectment brought by the Plaintiffs opposite parties against Petitioner Bishnu Charan Mukherjee. The premises from which the Petitioner is sought to be evicted consists of a room and a covered verandah at 46 Khurut Road. The ground on which ejectment was claimed by the Plaintiffs was one of default in payment of rent.

(2.) The suit was contested by the Defendant Petitioner, who denied relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the Plaintiffs opposite parties and contended that one Jagannath Chatterjee, son of Petitioner's sister, was the real tenant of the premises and he conducted business therein.

(3.) While the suit was in progress in the court of the learned Munsif the Plaintiffs opposite parties filed an application under Section 14(4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950 for a direction upon the Defendant Petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and also to pay current rent month by month. This application was contested by the Petitioner and the principal ground of his contest was that he was not a tenant of the Plaintiffs opposite parties and was not, therefore, bound to pay either arrears of rent or current rent. The application was, however, allowed on contest on January 18, 1955. The Petitioner did not deposit the sum of Rs. 950, which he was directed to deposit within 15 days of the date of final order passed on the application under Section 14(4). His defence against ejectment was, therefore; struck out. The suit, however, continued to proceed because the Plaintiffs had a claim for mesne profits in the suit. The Petitioner attempted to show that he was not liable for any mesne profits inasmuch as he was not a tenant of the opposite parties. In order to substantiate his allegation that he was not a tenant of the opposite parties the Defendant wanted to disprove his signature on a certain document, which had been previously marked Ext. 3 and which was relied on by the other side for the purpose of showing that the Petitioner was a tenant of the opposite parties. The Petitioner's prayer for citing a handwriting expert for the above purpose was disallowed by the trial court because, in the opinion of that court, the question about the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant had been finally decided between the parties and the matter could not be re-agitated at the instance of either party. This order was passed on March 29, 1956 and the Defendant has come to this Court in revision contending that by refusing process on the handwriting expert, the learned Munsif has refused illegally to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him by law.