Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal vs Krishna Mitra

Harish Tandon, J.—This revisional application is directed against the order No. 77 dated 4th September, 2013 and order No. 81 dated 3rd January, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 288 of 2004, by which an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modification of the order dated 4th September, 2013 are disposed of. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was the original tenant. The admitted owner sold a portion of the said premises to Pradip Kumar Gupta and another and a letter was issued by the Advocate intimating the sale and ask for the payment of the rent. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner deposited the rent in the office of the Rent Controller under a bona fide doubt as to whether the plaintiffs/opposite parties are the landlord and entitled to receive the rent or the aforesaid predecessors are entitled to receive the rent in respect of the suit-premises. The aforesaid deposits were raised before the Rent Controller and after the death of the original tenant the present petitioner continued to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller.

After receiving the summons of the Eviction Suit the petitioner raises a dispute as to the existence of the relationship of "landlord and tenant" as well as the period of default. By order No. 77 dated 4th September, 2013 the Court not only held that there exist a relationship of the landlord and tenant but also found that the entire deposits with the Rent Controller are invalid and directed the petitioner to deposit the arrear rent with statutory interest.

Subsequently the petitioner took out an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the aforesaid order on the plea that the deposits were made under a bona fide doubt and, therefore, it is not to be preceded by sending the money by Money Order. The Court rejected the said application as no ground for recalling the said order is made out.

Admittedly the Ejectment Suit is filed on the ground of default and reasonable requirements. The plaintiffs/opposite parties were the landlords of the entire-premises, but doubts are being created because of their action to sell a portion thereof. According to the petitioner, the deposits were made in the name of the deceased plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 in the office of the Rent Controller and it cannot be said that those deposits are invalid as no Money Order coupon was produced before the Court at the time of considering the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Though this Court does not approve the course adopted by the Trial Court in deciding the relationship between the landlord and the tenant without framing specific issues, but the said finding is mere tentative and does not bind the Court at the time of final hearing of the Suit when one of the issues would be the existence of the relationship of "landlord and tenant". Since a plea is also taken whether the tenancy comprised in the portion, which is sold, transferred and conveyed to third parties or within the portion retain with the plaintiffs/opposite parties, in my considered opinion such plea shall also be decided at the time of final hearing of the Suit.

Though this Court does not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the order No. 81 dated 3rd January, 2014, as the recalling was sought in the guise of review, but when the parent order is also assailed in this revisional application, this Court finds that if the order No. 77 dated 4th September, 2013 is set aside, the subsequent order being dependent thereupon would also fall. The rate of rent is not disputed, it is only the period of default, which is disputed by the petitioner.

To mitigate the situation, this Court feels'' the petitioner should deposit the arrear rent together with the statutory interest in the Suit.

Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner to deposit the amounts determined by the trial Court as arrear rent in the order No. 77 dated 4th September, 2013 within four weeks from date before the trial Court. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited for the aforesaid period with the Rent Controller. If an application is made by the petitioner before the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller shall see that the payment is made to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of making such application.

The trial Court is requested to see that the Suit shall reach to its logical end as early as possible. It is further requested that the trial Court shall take all endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order.

With the above observations, the revisional application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.