High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 CAL CK 0172

Smt. Chhaya Ghosh @ Smt. Radharani Ghosh vs Sri Bikram Dasgupta & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 18 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjib Banerjee
CASE NUMBER
4704 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 347 words
1.

This is a frivolous petition and there is no basis to the same. Indeed, the miscellaneous case for review on which the order impugned herein was passed on August 3, 2016 was itself mischievous and completely out of place.

2.

The petitioner is the defendant in an eviction suit. The petitioner''s application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was rejected by an order dated June 11, 2010 when the trial court found that no dispute had been raised and the trial court also recorded that the petitioner herein was a defaulter in payment of rent for a period of 44 months beginning October, 2006 and ending May, 2010.

3.

The defendant sought leave to deposit the arrears in eight installments but such prayer was rejected by the same order of June 11, 2010. The petitioner made no attempt to put in the arrears as adjudged by the trial court. In due course an application under Section 7(3) of the Act followed and the defence was struck off, whereupon such order came to be challenged in this court by way of CO 1820 of 2012.

4.

Such previous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed by an order of September 6, 2012 upon recording the circumstances in which the order dated June 11, 2010 was passed on the petitioner''s application under Section 7(2) of the said Act, the default on the part of the petitioner and the complete lack of grounds in assailing the order passed under Section 7(3) of the Act.

5.

It is inconceivable that after the order of September 6, 2012, the petitioner herein would have had the temerity to apply for review of the order dated June 11, 2010 or the trial court would even consider it on merits. The entire exercise was in futility and a complete waste of time.

6.

CO 4704 of 2016 is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-.

7.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.