Smt. Lakshmi Kuila & Anr vs Surath Chandra Halder & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3065 Cal

S/L 13
01.05.2023
Court. No. 12
Sourav
                              CO 1908 of 2022
                                   With
                               CAN 1 of 2023

                        Smt. Lakshmi Kuila & Anr.
                                   Vs.
                       Surath Chandra Halder & Ors.

                Mr. Taraknath Halder
                                                        ... for the petitioners.

                Mr. Gautam Das
                Ms. Madhumita Patra
                                                   ... for the opposite parties.


                1.

Both the parties are represented by their respective

learned advocates.

2. Heard learned advocate for the

defendants/revisionists and learned advocate for the

plaintiffs/opposite parties at length.

3. The present revisional application is now taken up for

passing appropriate order.

4. In this revisional application, the order dated March

31, 2022 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Additional Court at Sealdah, District -

South 24 Parganas in Ejectment Suit No. 67 of 2013

has been assailed.

5. By the impugned order, learned Trial Court in a suit

for eviction under the provisions of the West Bengal

Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, ('the said Act of 1997',

for short) has been pleased to dispose of the petition

under Section 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 holding

that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant

between the plaintiffs and the defendants, subject to

final determination of the said suit and by the self-

same order, learned Trial Court was also pleased to

hold that the defendants are defaulter in payment of

rent for the months of January, 1973 to February

2022 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month and thus

directed the defendants of the said suit to pay the

arrears of rent together with statutory interest

amounting to Rs. 25,432/- in favour of the plaintiffs

within one month from the date of passing of this

said order.

6. The defendants of Ejectment Suit No. 67 of 2013 felt

aggrieved and thus, preferred the instant revisional

application.

7. In support of the instant revisional application,

learned advocate for the defendants/revisionists at

the very outset draws attention of this Court to the

impugned order. Attention of Court is also drawn to a

photocopy of judgment dated January 30, 2008 as

passed in Title Suit No. 196 of 1986 by the learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Sealdah.

8. It is contended on behalf of the

defendants/revisionists that in the said suit between

the self-same parties in respect of the suit property,

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court

Sealdah, declined to hold that the defendants were

the tenant under the plaintiffs and, accordingly, the

defendants are not liable to pay any rent either

arrears or current in respect of the suit property. It is

contended further on behalf of the

defendants/revisionists that the said suit was

challenged before the appellate court where an order

was passed by the appellate court directing the

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court,

Sealdah to grant opportunity to both the parties to

the said suit to adduce evidence afresh for disposal of

the issue nos. 4 and 5 as involved in Title Suit No. 196

of 1986 and challenging the said judgment of the

appellate court, the present defendants/revisionists

have preferred a First Miscellaneous Appeal before

this Hon'ble Court which is still pending.

9. It is submitted by Mr. Halder, learned advocate for

the defendants/revisionists that since the

adjudication of title in respect of the suit property is

pending before this Hon'ble Court in FMAT No. 879

of 2010 renumbered as FMA No. 1357 of 2013,

learned Trial Court is not at all justified in passing

the impugned order holding that there exists a

relationship of landlord and tenant between the

plaintiffs and the defendants in Ejectment Suit No.

67 of 2013.

10. Mr. Das, learned advocate for the plaintiffs/opposite

parties, however, opposes such contention. It is

contended by Mr. Das, that learned Trial Court is

perfectly justified in passing the impugned order

since while disposing a petition under Section 7(2) of

the said Act of 1997, learned Trial Court is duty

bound to dispose of all the disputes as raised by the

defendants/revisionists in a suit for eviction. It is also

submitted by Mr. Das that learned Trial Court in the

impugned order specifically mentioned that the

determination of relationship as well as the

adjudication of the period of default is primary in

nature and the same is subject to final determination

of the said suit as pending before the learned Trial

Court.

11. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before

this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for

the contending parties, it appears to this Court that

learned Trial Court is very much justified in passing

the impugned order holding that there exists a

relationship of landlord and tenant between the

plaintiffs and the defendants and the defendants are

defaulter in payment of rent for a certain period

which is specifically mentioned in the said impugned

order. It also reveals to this Court that the learned

Trial Court came to such finding after considering the

materials as placed before him while disposing the

petition under Section 7(2) of the said Act of 1997

and while passing the impugned order, the said Trial

Court rightly observed that the finding in the

impugned order is subject to the final determination

of Ejectment Suit No. 67 of 2013.

12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this

Court finds no illegality and/or infirmity in the

impugned order for which this Court also finds no

requirement of any interference with the impugned

order.

13. Accordingly, the instant revisional application being

CO 1908 of 2022 is dismissed on contest.

Consequently, the impugned order dated March 31,

2022 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Additional Court at Sealdah, District -

South 24 Parganas in Ejectment Suit No. 67 of 2013

is hereby affirmed.

14. Considering the fact that the because of the pendency

of the instant revisional application, the present

defendants/revisionists could not deposit the arrears

of rent together with statutory interest as calculated

by the learned Trial Court within time framed by the

learned Trial Court, defendants/revisionists of the

instant revisional application are hereby directed to

deposit the said sum of Rs. 25,432/- in favour of the

plaintiffs within the last day of May, 2023

mandatorily.

15. Since before the learned Trial Court, Ejectment Suit

No. 67 of 2013 is pending for the last ten years,

learned Trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of

Ejectment Suit No. 67 of 2013 positively within a

period of six months from the date of

communication of this order.

16. It is made clear that the time limit as fixed by this

Court for disposal of Ejectment Suit No. 67 of 2013

shall have to be mandatorily followed by the learned

Trial Court and the learned Trial Court shall not

grant any unnecessary adjournment to either sides.

17. All interim applications are hereby disposed of.

18. All interim orders, if any, stands hereby vacated.

19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance

of necessary formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)