SHIKHA DUTTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisional applications are directed against Order No. 12, dated February 2, 1988 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 11 of 1987, disposing of an application filed under Sections 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ('Act' for short). By the impugned order the learned Judge directed the tenant/defendant to pay arrear municipal taxes and arrear rents amounting to Rs. 17,920 and Rs. 4,380. respectively, together with interest thereon @ 81/2%, in ten equal monthly installments. One of these applications has been filed by the plaintiff/landlord whose grievance is that the calculation of arrear rents is wrong while the grievance of the defendant, who is the petitioner in the other revisional application, is that the learned Judge erred in directing her to pay arrear municipal taxes.

(2.) It is not disputed that the tenancy is governed by a written agreement, dated September 25, l980. The agreement provident inter alia that the tenant shall pay a monthly sum of Rs. 1,230 as rent and bear municipal taxes. Another term of the agreement, which is relevant for our present purposes, is that 50% of the monthly rent payable, that is to say, Rs. 650 is to be adjusted against the sum of Rs. 85,000 which was advanced by the tenant td the land-lord.

(3.) Relying upon the provisions of the agreement Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the application filed by the tenant, submitted that she (the tenant) agreed to pay only Rs. 1,230 as rent and consequently the learned fudge could not have directed her to pay municipal tax, which was not part of agreed 'rent', while disposing of the application under Sections 17(2) and (2A) of the Act. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury the liabiliity of the tenant to pay municipal tax under the agreement was not a rent liability and consequently she was not obligated to pay, the same as a part of the rent. The other contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury was that since municipal tax was a variable, and not a fixed, sum it could not legally form part of rent. In support of his above contentions Mr. Roy Chowdhury principally relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chhotelal vs. Kewal Krishan reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 987