ARUP RATAN PAUL Vs. AKSHYABAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner and is directed against the order no. 17 dated 10. 08. 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, Small causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 61 of 2003-E whereby he has allowed the petition under Section 27 of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and he has allowed the defendant/opposite party to file a written statement after 5 months beyond the stipulated period upon payment of Costs of rs. 500/ -.

(2.) THE plaintiff/petitioner filed the Ejectment Suit for recovery of khas possession on the ground of default in payment of rent, sub-letting, illegal occupation and / or encroachment upon other portion of the premises. In that suit, the defendant/opposite party appeared and he filed a written statement after 5 months beyond the stipulated period. The Court allowed the defendant/opposite party to file the said written statement of defence upon payment of costs of Rs. 500/-to the plaintiff/petitioner. By the impugned order, the learned Civil judge has also allowed the petition under Section 27 of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act directing the plaintiff/petitioner to restore supply of electricity. Being aggrieved by such orders, the plaintiff/petitioner has preferred this application.

(3.) HAVING considered the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed the suit for ejectment stating, inter alia, in paragraph 1 of the plaint that the rent of the premises is Rs. 325/- per month including electric charge of rs. 50/- per month payable in advance on or before 3rd day of each month according to English calendar month. This is an admission of the plaintiff/petitioner in paragraph 1 of the plaint. Such averment clearly indicates that there was electricity in the premises in suit. Dispute arose between the parties subsequently. It is the contention of the defendant/opposite party that the plaintiff/petitioner had disconnected electricity of his premises, and he had stopped supply of water to his tenanted premises. In this application, the plaintiff/petitioner has challenged the impugned order on two grounds namely, direction upon the plaintiff/petitioner to restore electricity and acceptance of the written statement filed after 5 months of the statutory period on payment of costs of Rs. 500/ -.