BIMALENDU BHATTACHARYYA Vs. DULAL DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The specific allegation raised in the revisional application by the defendants/petitioners is that the trial court decided an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 filed by the petitioners, by disbelieving certain signatures of one Sumana Dhar, alleged to be the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff no.1, who apparently accepted rent on behalf of the plaintiffs, on a note book produced by the defendants/petitioners, the entries in which allegedly operated as rent receipts. It is seen that some of the signatures were also of one D. Dhar, who is alleged to be the plaintiff no.1.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in view of such unimpeachable evidence, the trial court acted without jurisdiction in overlooking such evidence to come to a finding with regard to the arrears of rent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that the plaintiffs specifically denied the acceptance of rent by Sumana Dhar on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is further argued on behalf of the opposite parties that the defendants could not prove by cogent evidence that rent was paid after May, 2010. As such, it is submitted that the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties also submits that the note book produced by the petitioners was a manufactured document.