BALIRAM PRASAD GUPTA Vs. MD ISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can an order, passed by the High Court, in a revision under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'the Code'), against an order, which a trial Court had passed during the course of the progress of a trial, operate as res judicata as regards the question, which the High Court decides in such a revision? Is it legally permissible for a Court to extend the period of filing of written statement, in a civil suit, beyond the period of 90 days from the date of service of summons on the defendant and, if so, under what conditions, such an extension of time can be allowed? Can a mere collector of rent be regarded, within the meaning of the definition of 'landlord', as given in Section 2(c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (in short, the Act'), a'landlord' for the purpose of enabling such a collector of rent to institute a suit, in his own name, for recovery of arrear rent and/or for eviction of a tenant from the tenanted premises if the tenanted premises have been let out to the tenant, not by the collector of the rent, but by a person, on whose behalf, the rent is so collected and, if so, is there any exception to this general rule? These are some of the prominent questions, which have arisen for determination, in the present revision, wherein stands challenged the judgment and decree, dated 11-10-2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. II, Tinsukia, in Title Appeal No. 12/2003, dismissing the appeal and upholding, in effect, the judgment and decree, dated 4-8-2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. II, Tinsukia, in Title Suit No. 7/2002, whereby the plaintiffs suit for, inter alia, eviction of the defendant and arrear rents was decreed.

(2.) Before dealing with the merit of the revision, let me set out the material facts and stages, which have led to the present revision. The plaintiff opposite party instituted the Title Suit No. 7/2002 aforementioned seeking, inter alia, a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises by removing the defendant therefrom, recovery of rents, etc., the case of the plaintiff being, in brief, thus : One Md. Basir is the owner of the suit premises, which consists of four rooms. A deed of agreement was executed, on 1-1-1979, between Md. Basir, as landlord, and the defendant, as tenant. In terms of this agreement, the defendant came into occupation of the suit premises, as a monthly tenant of the said Md. Basir, undertaking to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month, the rent being payable, in advance, within 10th day of each current month, according to English calendar, and a sum of Rs. 100/- was also to be paid per month as collection charge for the rent, the monthly rent being payable at the address of the landlord, the address being 75, Aliet Road, Calcutta, or to his authorized representative. The agreement between the parties stipulated enhancement of rent, after a period of three years, by a sum of Rs. 15/- per month, the defendant being entitled to repair the tenanted premises at his own expenses. Though the defendant paid the enhanced rent on and from January, 1988, the defendant failed and neglected to pay, despite repeated reminders, rents from the month of December, 1999. This apart, the defendant also made alteration and addition to the suit premises, which were illegal.

(3.) Pursuant to the summons received by him, the defendant appeared in the suit through his appointed counsel. Though the defendant filed his written statement, the learned trial court rejected, on 21-3-2003, the defendant's prayer for accepting the written statement, the refusal to accept the written statement being on the ground that the period of 90 days, prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code, had expired. The defendant, then, came to this Court by filing a revision under Section 115 of the Code, this revision having given rise to C. R. P. No. 126 of 2003. By judgment and order, dated 13-5-2003, the High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the order, dated 13-5-2003, passed in the revision, the defendant carried the matter, by way of a Special Leave Petition, to the Supreme Court. Following, however, the refusal of the trial Court to accept the written statement filed by the defendant, the suit proceeded and came to be decreed, on 4-8-2003, in favour of the plaintiff. During the hearing of the suit, the plaintiff reiterated the statements made in the plaint. The plaintiff also filed, in the suit, a copy of the general power of attorney executed by Md. Basir, on 4-1- 1992, at Kolkata, in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also exhibited a copy of the agreement of tenancy executed, on 1-1- 1979, between Md. Basir and the defendant in respect of the suit premises. Before the Special Leave Petition could be taken up by the Supreme Court, the suit, thus, stood decreed in favour of the plaintiff. By an order, dated 1-9-2003, the Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave petition, but made an observation that it would be open to the defendant to urge in appeal, against the decree, the ground that his written statement ought to have been accepted by the learned trial Court.