ASHIT DEY SARKAR Vs. SUNIL KUMAR DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The case of the respondent in the suit was that the petitioner took the suit room morefully described in the plaint from the respondent on rent for doing business, for which a bharanama' dated 22.12.1994 was executed between the parties. The tenancy commenced from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2009 and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.600/- per month, payable on or before 5th of the following English calendar month. An advance rent of Rs.40,000/- was given to the respondent, out of which Rs.300/- was to be paid in cash and Rs.300/- was to be adjusted against advance rent. After expiry of the term of the said agreement, the petitioner did not come for execution of a fresh agreement, nor delivered the possession of the suit room to the plaintiff despite demand. The monthly rent was paid by the petitioner upto December, 2000 against receipt. However, no monthly rent was paid thereafter and, as such, the petitioner became a defaulter. The monthly rent was thereafter fully adjusted against the balance advance rent and, as such, from January, 2003 to June, 2007 a sum of Rs. 32,000/- had accumulated as arrear monthly rent recoverable from the petitioner @ Rs. 600/- per month for 53 months plus Rs. 200/- being the outstanding amount after adjustment of advance rent with the monthly rent payable for the month of January, 2003. It was also projected that the respondent required the suit room bona fide for extension of his pharmacy under the name and style of M/s. Suruchi Medicos.

(3.) The petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement took three self-contradictory stands in paragraph 13 and 14 thereof and took another diametrically opposite stand in paragraph 17 of his written statement. In paragraph 13 and 14, on one hand, it was denied that the advance rent was not fully adjusted against monthly rent before January, 2003 and on the other hand, it was claimed that even after January, 2003 advance rent had remained unadjusted against the monthly rent and on yet another hand, it was denied that no arrear rent of Rs. 32,000/- is due from January, 2000 to June, 2007 @ Rs.600/- per month for 53 months plus Rs.200/- being outstanding after adjustment of advance amount with the rent of January, 2003 and the respondent herein is not entitled to realize the said amount of Rs. 32,000/- from the petitioner herein through court. In paragraph 17 it was submitted that the petitioner never stopped payment of monthly rent on and from January, 2003 and the respondent realized Rs.300/- per month against advance rent of Rs.40,000/- even after expiry of period of agreement. In paragraph 18 and 19 of the written statement it was sated that respondent realized rent till June, 2007 and the rent for the month of July, 2007 was deposited in court vide Misc. (R/C) Case No. 422/07 after respondent refused to accept rent.