Shreechand Jain vs Animesh Sinha

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The defendant in an eviction suit has preferred the instant revisional application against an order whereby the petitioner's application for addition of a bank as a party was refused and his application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was disposed of by holding the petitioner to be a defaulter in respect of a period during which the petitioner deposited the amount equivalent to rent in the court below, but erroneously in the name of the court itself instead of the landlord.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that since the personnel of the bank have been regularly coming to the suit premises and intimating the petitioner that action had been taken by the bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, the petitioner attempted to enquire from his landlord the details in that regard, but in vain. As such, it is argued that the bank ought to have been impleaded for a proper and complete adjudication of the suit in view of the rights claimed by the bank in the suit property.

Regarding the adjudication under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the learned advocate for the petitioner argues that since the petitioner is not a defaulter, but had deposited all the amounts although, by mistake, in the name of the court instead of the landlord, during the period of pendency of the suit, the court ought to have construed such deposits as valid deposits.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party controverts such submissions of the petitioner and submits that the matter has already been settled between the bank and the landlord and, as such, in any event, the bank could not be a necessary party. It is further submitted that the provisions of law do not contemplate deposit in the name of the court and, as such, the trial court was justified in holding such deposits by the petitioner to be bad deposits.

As regards the prayer for addition of the bank as a party, the same was rightly refused by the trial court, since the petitioner could not pray for addition of a third party to the suit, which would take the suit beyond the pale of its current ambit, that is, an eviction suit under Section 6 of the 1997 Act. Addition of such a third party would convert the suit from a suit for eviction simpliciter under the said Act to one for adjudication of the alleged contradictory rights of the parties and title in respect of the suit property, which would be entirely beyond the scope of the present context.

As regards the adjudication that the deposits made in the court were invalid, the trial court was also justified on such score, since the petitioner was to make such deposits in the name of the landlord and has been given another opportunity to put in the said arrears. However, for the ends of justice, the petitioner ought also to be given an opportunity to withdraw the amount already deposited in the court, obviously by mistake, in the name of the court.

Accordingly, the revisional application bearing C.O. 1835 of 2019 is disposed on contest without interfering with the impugned order, but granting the petitioner the liberty to withdraw the amounts, deposited in the name of the court by the petitioner in the court below, in Ejectment Suit No. 117 of 2016, upon making an application in the court below in that regard.

There will be no order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.