NASHIBAN BIBI Vs. PARUL BALA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Rules are directed against the same order. Civil Rule No. 700 of 1957 was obtained by the landlords while Civil Rule No. 1093 of 1957 was obtained by the tenant. The circumstances under which the aforesaid Rules were issued may be summarised as hereinafter appearing The plaintiffs landlords (petitioners in Civil Rule No. 700 of 1957), who are themselves tenants of the first degree, instituted a suit for eviction of the tenant defendant No. 1, Sm. Parul Bala Dutta who is the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1093 of 1957. Two other persons were made defendants in the said suit, namely, Ram Chandra Das and Shyam Chandra Das, on the allegation that they were being set up as sub-tenants by Parul Bala Dutta above-named. The premises in dispute is a portion of a house, bearing number 82/1 Cornwallis Street, in the town of Calcutta. The admitted rent is Rs. 99 per month, payable according to the English Calendar. It was pleaded in the plaint that the tenant defendant No. 1 had defaulted in payment of rent from the month of November 1951. It was further pleaded that the tenant did acts contrary to the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) SUMMONS in the suit was served on defendant No. 1 on November 27, 1956. Defendant No. 1 entered appearance on December 12. 1956. On December 18, 1956 the tenant defendant No. 1 filed an application stating that all rents upto September 1956 had been paid by her and praying for permission to deposit in court rents from October 1956. The aforesaid application was apparently treated as a dispute raised by the tenant regarding arrears outstanding within the meaning of section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and was set down for hearing on the 21st of December 1956.

(3.) AT the hearing of the application it was admitted on behalf of the defendant No. 1 that she had not paid rent to the landlords as and by way of rent at any time upto September 1956. What was said was that she had paid certain sums of money to the Corporation of Calcutta in payment of the owner's share and also occupier's share of the consolidated rates. If these payments were adjusted against the amount said to be due as arrears of rent nothing would be due and owing by her on account of rent upto September 1956.