SAMARJIT CHAKRAVORTY Vs. NANDALAL KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of the present Revisional application is Order No. 121, dated 7th of July, 1987 passed by the Learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 790 of 1972.

(2.) The relevant facts are somewhat chequered. A Suit for eviction was partially decreed. While the said decree was put into execution an objection was taken on behalf of the tenant under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 370 of 1984. The said objection having been dismissed, a Revisional application was preferred before this Court on which Civil Rule No. 3421 of 1984 was issued. While deciding the said Civil Rule it was directed by the Learned Single Judge, hearing the Rule, that the Trial Judge would apportion the rent in terms of Section 13(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in Ejectment Suit No 790 of 1972 in exercise of his powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the matter was put up before the Learned Trial Judge for apportionment of rent as directed, three applications were filed, one under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the tenant/defendant praying for a reference under Article 228 of the Constitution of India to this Hon'ble Court of the question mentioned in the said application and also two Learned Advocates under Order 1 Rule 8A of the Code of Civil. Procedure praying for permission to take part in the proceeding contending that in the said proceeding an important question of law, namely, whether after affirmation of a decree for eviction by a Division Bench of this Court, it was open to a Learned Single Judge to direct modification of the said decree by fixing proportionate rent, arose. As stated above, the Learned Trial Judge rejected all the three applications by the impugned Order and one of the applicants under Order 1, Rule 8A of the Code of Civil Procedure has moved the present Revisional application before this Court challenging the propriety of the said Order.

(3.) Although elaborate submissions had been made by the contesting parties touching also the merit, on various grounds, of the Order of the Learned Single Judge passed in the Civil Revision case before this Court, I am called upon only to decide the propriety of the Order under challenge so far it relates to the rejection on the petitioner's application under Order 1, Rule 8A of the Code of Civil Procedure.