P.K.Samanta, J. - (1.) The plaintiff/petitioner filed Ejectment Suit No. 309 of 1997 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the said Act) for eviction of the defendant/opposite party. The defendant/opposite party upon appearance in the said suit filed an application under section 17(2) and 17(2A)(b) of the said act read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising a dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is the basic requirement under the aforesaid provisions of the said Act that the tenant should deposit in Court within the time prescribed therein the amount admitted by him to be due together with the application for determination of the rent payable and the Court has been empowered to determine the rate of rent and the period of default and at the same time considering the facts and circumstances of the case to extend the time to make such deposit and/or to grant installments in payment of rents for the period of default. Such determination of the rate of rent and the period of default necessarily implies a determination as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit an otherwise the tenant would not have the obligation to deposit rent in Court in the pending eviction suit filed by one who is not the landlord of the tenant.
(2.) By the impugned order dated 9th February, 1999 passed on the said application filed by the defendant/opposite party it was held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the defendant opposite party is under no obligation to deposit in the pending eviction suit the rents both current and arrear with interests for the periods of default if there be any. The foremost question involved in this revisional application is as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether in law such a relationship exists between the parties in view of the pleadings of the parties and the materials or record. These questions assume importance in view of the decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court which I will deal hereinafter.
(3.) The plaintiff/petitioner did not claim and/or allege ownership of the suit premises but alleged that the defendant/opposite party is the tenant under the plaintiff/petitioner as because the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to receive the rents of the said premises from the defendant/opposite party even if such entitlement is not on his own account. The letter dated 21.1.72 (Ext. 1) is the only document which is forthcoming for a decision on the said question. The said letter was written by the Director of the defendant/opposite party to the "Rampurias" who are not parties to this suit, with a copy to the plaintiff/petitioner. By the said letter it was confirmed by the defendant/opposite party to the Ramparias that the defendant/opposite party agreed to take on rent the suit premises as a monthly tenant thereof from the Rampurias with effect from 1.1.72 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The extent of tenancy being not the subject matter of dispute in this revisional application the same is not dealt with. One of the terms and conditions of the tenancy which is relevant and important for the present purpose, is as under :- "That further it is understood that you have empowered Messrs The Rampuria Estates Private Limited to collect and receive the rents and the receipts granted by the said Messrs. The Rampuria Estates Private Limited with regard to the payments of rent shall operate as a full discharge to us in respect thereof. All further correspondences shall be made by us to your said Company.";