TARAMONI CHAUDHURY Vs. PARISHCHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit brought by the petitioner as plaintiff against the respondent (defendant tenant) for recovery of possession of the suit land and house was dismissed by the Sadar Munsiff (1), Silchar, in T.S. No. 112 of 1975. Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Munsiff was also dismissed by the Assistant District Judge (1), Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 81 of 1977. This is now how the revision has come up for hearing in this Court.

(2.) The fact found proved by the Courts below are that the High Court of Calcutta appointed a Receiver of the suit land and house. The Receiver leased out the suit land and house to the defendant-tenant. But the Receiver, with the permission of the High Court of Calcutta, sold the suit land and house to the plaintiff-petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 13.9.1974. The defendant-tenant came to know of the assignment only from the assignee (Plaintiff) when he received a notice of eviction from the plaintiff. Under one of the conditions of the lease, the defendant-tenant was to pay rent for the month of September 1974 by 7.10.1974. The defendant-tenant having no notice of the assignment, paid the rent to the assignor, but the assignor and/or his employees refused to accept the rent paid by the defendant-tenant for the month of September. Therefore, the defendant-tenant deposited the rents under the Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short the "Act") within time on 12.10.1974. However, on 12.10.1974, the defendant-tenant deposited the rent for the months of September and October of 1974 in favour of the assignor. As soon as the defendant-tenant came to know about the assignment, he offered or tendered or paid the rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also refused to accept the same. Therefore, the defendant-tenant amended the rent deposit petition on 18.8.1975 and has been depositing the rent in the name of the plaintiff (assignee) under the "Act".

(3.) The only contention of Shri K.P. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the deposit of rents as aforesaid does amount the payment of rent to the plaintiff or the landlord and that the defendant-tenant has not paid the rent due from him. Mr. Sen has further submitted that the petitioner is the land-lord under Section 2(c) of the Act as he is entitled to the rent and that the defendant ought to have tendered or offered or paid the rent to the plaintiff or deposited the rent in favour of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff refused to accept the rent. Therefore the aforesaid deposit of rents does not amounts to payment of rent to the plaintiff under the "Act".