JAGANNATH PAL Vs. KALIPADA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule has been obtained by the defendant against an order No. 14 dated September 9, 1976 passed by the learned Munsif, Raigan, whereby an application of the defendant under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was rejected. It appears that the defendant was holding the suit premises under a monthly tenancy at a rent of Rs. 120/-per month payable according to English calendar month and the suit far eviction was instituted by the plaintiff landlord inter alia on the ground of own use and occupation. The defendant who is contesting the suit, deposited the admitted amount of rent due from september, 1975 to April, 1976 with interest for Rs. 30/- in all Rs. 990/- on may 22, 1976 within a month of service of summons. The application under section 17 (2) was made on April 24,1976 alleging that the plaintiff had taken a sum of Rs. 2001/- as advance with a promise to have the same adjusted against future rent but no such adjustment had been made. Accordingly it was necessary that the amount of future rent payable by the defendant should be determined though the defendant had been depositing current rent on due dates. It was accordingly prayed that the court should determine the future rent payable by him to the landlord with interest on adjustment of the said sum and issue necessary directions accordingly.

(2.) THIS application was opposed by the plaintiff and it was stated that the amount of Rs. 2001/- had been repaid already and nothing was due on that account. It was further stated that as there was no dispute in regard to the rate or quantum of rent the application in respect of future rent was not maintainable in law.

(3.) THE learned Munsif was of opinion that the application under section 17 (2) was vague as it did not even mention the rate of rent nor the period during which the rent was to be adjusted. It was further held that as there was no dispute over the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties or the rate of rent it was obvious that there was no real dispute over the amount of rent payable within the meaning of section 17 (2)while the suit was on ground of own use and occupation. The application was held by the impugned order to be not maintainable and it was accordingly rejected.