BICHITRA NANDA ROUTH Vs. RENT CONTROLLER BARRACKPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revisional application has been filed challenging order dated 25. 8. 87 passed by the learned Additional rent Controller at Barrackpore rejecting the application for deposit of rent by the petitioner. This matter previously came before this Court in Civil Rule No. 3670 of 1983 and disposed of on 26. 4. 85 by Hon'ble Chief justice Satish Chandra (as His Lordship then was ). The impugned order dated 25-11-83 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Rent Controller for disposal after hearing the petitioner as well as the landlord-opposite party. The parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller. Pursuant to the said order the matter was heard by the Assitional Rent Controller and found that the rent receipt annexed as annexure 'a' to that petition does not corroborate with the house number. He found that the tenancy is not proved beyond doubt and the application of the petitioner was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned lawyers of both sides, it appears that the learned- Additional Rent Controller has found that the petitioner could not prove the tenancy to enable him to deposit the rent. The question arises as to whether the Rent Controller has any jurisdiction to decide the question as to the tenancy or to decide the status of the parties. The Rent Controller assumed jurisdiction under section, 21 (8) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act which indicates, inter alia, that if at the time of filing the petition mentioned in sub-section (5), but) not after the expiry of thirty days from receiving the notice of deposit, the landlord or the person or persons mentioned in sub-section (3) complain to the controller that the statements in the tenant's application of the reasons and circumstances which led him to deposit the rent are untrue, the controller, after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard, may levy on the tenant a fine which may extend to an amount equal to two months' rent or one hundred rupees, whichever is more; if he is satisfied that the said statements were materially untrue and may -order that a sum out of the fine realised be paid' to the landlord as compensation. Section 21 (8) of the said Act relates to determination of the dispute as to the description in the application between the tenant and the landlord. In a case where a dispute is raised as to whether the petitioner is a tenant or not, the same cannot be decided by the Rent Controller in the proper perspective. The attention of this Court has been drawn to a decision reported in 1980 (1) CHN 28 (Ball Krishna Jhunjhunwalla v. Pritimoy bhattacharya and State ). It was found out that the Rent Controller will be deemed to be a court within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code and the alleged offence, if committed, comes under section 21 (8) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and is a statutory offence under the code and therefore the complainant could have made an application before the Rent Controller under section 21 (8) of the said Act. The question whether the Rent Controller is a court within the meaning of section 21 (8) is not important in this case. The question is as to whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to decide the status of the parties and to find out whether a person is a tenant or not. Although it is argued with emphasis that before accepting the rent to be deposited, the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to see prima facie whether the person has any tenancy right. Upon consideration of all these aspects of the matter, this Court finds that if a dispute as to the right of tenancy arises, the same can be decided only by the competent civil court and none else. Any deposit before the Rent Controller will be made by the person concerned at his risk and without causing any prejudice to the right of the opposite party who is claiming to be the "landlord". Any deposit will not confer any right upon the petitioner by simply depositing the amount with the Rent Controller. In the instant case the rent Controller was not right in rejecting the application for deposit. The. impugned order is thus set aside and the revisional application is disposed of with this direction that the Rent Controller will receive the deposit to be made by the petitioner at his risk and without prejudice to the rights of the opposite party and it is made clear that any deposit towards the claim of tenancy will be subject to the decision of any competent civil court and this deposit merely will not confer any special right upon the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs. Application disposed of.