Anand Kumar Rungta alias Roongta vs Balai Chandra Das

@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner in support of this petition made under article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submits, there should be interference with order dated 21st December, 2019 made by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas in, inter alia, Ejectment Suit 84 of 2013 (Balai Chandra Das vs. Anand Kr. Rongta).

"After the suits were filed, the defendant deposited before this court monthly rent by way of court deposit challan but by order dated 16.06.2015, the challans filed by the defendant in respect of suits no. 91/2006 and 92/2006 were held to be invalid and as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, this court shall not re-visit the said observation."

He then turns to referred order dated 16th June, 2015 and demonstrates that trial Court found, some deposits made in a wrongly numbered suit were bad deposits. That order was challenged and coordinate Bench by order 13th September, 2019 allowed the revision application. Inter alia, following was made clear by the Bench.

"It is made clear that the re-hearing of the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act would be restricted to the production of the rent control challans, alleged to be in the custody of the petitioner, and the consequent effect on the quantum of arrears of rent. The trial court, in the garb of re-hearing the application, shall not revisit the previous observations made in the order dated June 16, 2015 as to certain challan deposits in under a different suit number being faulty deposits."

The trial Court, now, purportedly going by clarification made by the coordinate Bench, has again disregarded the deposits as according to it, taking them into account would be revisiting the matter.

On query from Court, Mr. Roy submits, service has been effected and Mr. Tarak Nath Halder, who, he learnt, has been engaged by plaintiff to appear at the hearing of this petition. Plaintiff, however, goes unrepresented.

It is clear that the trial Court misunderstood the clarification made by the coordinate Bench. Said Bench directed the trial Court to re-hear the application taking into account the rent control challans, which were deposited against erroneous suit number. What was directed as could not be revisited was whether those deposits were good or bad.

Impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to expeditiously deal with the petition, pursuant to this order.

The petition and connected application are disposed of.