PARUL BANERJEE Vs. ANAND KUMAR AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is at the instance of the plaintiff and it is directed against order No. 60 dated Jan., 20, 1979 of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court Alipore, by the said order the learned subordinate judge allowed the application of the defendant under section 17(2) and 17(2A) (b) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 holding inter alia that the defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent, and that lie was entitled to get protection under the provision of section 17(4) of the said Act.

(2.) The suit for eviction has been filed by the plaintiff alleging, interalia, amongst others that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent for four months within a period of 12 months. The defendant in his written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself. He also filed an application under the provision of section 17(2) and section 17(2A) (b). In that application also, he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Subordinate Judge did not decide the question as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but he deferred the determination of that question till the hearing of the suit. It transpires that the defendant had by the challan dated Feb., 16, 1979 deposited rents from May to July 1976. Clearly therefore, the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent. The learned Subordinate judge, however, observed that as the defendant had deposited rents for the said months he was not a defaulter, completely. Overlooking the fact that the deposit was made long after the rents for the said months had fallen due. Moreover, the said deposit was made in a lump for the said months.

(3.) The next question that arose for the decision of the learned subordinate judge was as to the amount of rent. The case cf the plaintiff was that the defendant was a tenant under, the plaintiff at a rent of Rs. 550.00 per month. The defendant, however denied that the rent was Rs. 550.00 but it was alleged by him that the rent was Rs. 300.00 and maintenance charges wet Rs. 250.00 The learned Subodinage Judge came to the finding that the tent was Rs. 300.00 and not Rs. 550.00 as alleged by the plaintiff for the said sum of Rs. 250.00 . was payable by the defendant on account of maintenance charges. The learned Subordinate Judge in our view committed a mistake. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Karnani Properties Vs. Miss Augustins and ors, AIR 1957 SC 309 that the term 'Rent' has not been defined in the Act and accordingly it must be deemed to have been used in its ordinary dictionary meaning. Further it has been held that the term 'rent' is comprehensive enough to include all payment agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building and its appurtenances but also all furnishings, Electric installations and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord. In Usha Ranjan in Bhattacherjee Vs. Mahalakmi Thacker 1975(1) CLJ 204 M.N. Roy, J. after considering the said decision of the supreme Court and other decisions has also held that 'rent' means and includes the whole amount which is agreed to be paid by the tenant as consideration for the occupation of the premises. In view of the above decision, the learned Subordinate judge in our view, committed an error or law which is apparent on the face of the impugned order that the said sum of Rs. 250.00 payable by the defendant to the petitioner on account of maintenance charges was not included within the amount of rent. We are therefore of the view that the rent that was payable by the defendant to the petitioner was Rs. 550.00 per month.