- (1.) The challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 26.7.2006 passed by the learned Judge, II nd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 799 of 2003 whereby the prayer for repairing of the suit premises was allowed in part.
(2.) This revision application is filed at the instance of the plaintiff ( hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) Amal Krishna Banik who instituted the suit being no. 799 of 2003 praying for the following reliefs : a) A declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the suit premises under the defendants at a monthly rental of Rs. 190/-. b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite parties) to cause any inconvenience and/or obstruction and/or interference to the peaceful user of the suit premises along with roof , eastern side open space and tap water connection situated on the Eastern side of the suit premises. c) Any other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to. The petitioner filed an application in the learned Trial Court and sought for permission of the Court to repair the collapsible gate at the entrance of the suit premises, electric light fixed in the outer wall just above the collapsible gate at the entrance, windows of the kitchen and southern side room of the suit property, the bathroom door etc. A local inspection was also prayed for and was, in fact, held to ascertain the condition of the above mentioned properties in the suit premises. The prayer for repairing was opposed by the opposite parties. The matter was taken up for hearing by the learned Judge on 26.7.2006. Upon hearing of both the parties the learned Judge pass the following order. Or. No. 38 dt. 26.7.06 " Both parties are present by filing their respective haziras. Defdts have filed W.O. against the application U/s. 151 C.P.C. filed by the plff. After supplying copy of the same to the other side. Let the same be kept with the record. The hearing arises out of an application dt. 28.6.06 U/s. 151 C.P.C. filed by the plff. praying for seeking permission to repair the suit premises on the ground stated therein. Perused the present application. Hd. The Ld. Lawyer. Considered. I have also perused the W.O against the instant application. Although defdts filed written objection against the instant application dt. 28.6.06 U/s 151 C.P.C. filed by the plff. praying for seeking permission to repair the suit premises but at the time of hearing Ld. Lawyer on behalf of the defts. frankly submitted before this court that the defdts have no any objection if permission is given to the plff. to repair the suit premises in respect of point nos. 2,3,4 and 5 as mentioned in the application itself. Considering this aspect the plff. is permitted to repair the broken electric light on the outer wall at the entrance, broken windows in the kitchen and southern side room of the suit property, broken door of the bath room and to repair the washing basin as mentioned in the application itself at his own cost. It is to be noted here that no permission is given to the plff. to refix collapsible gate in the three sides of the outer wall at the entrance of the suit property as state by him. The application dt. 28.6.06 U/s 151 C.P.C. filed by the plff. is thus disposed of. Fix 14.9.2006 for P.hearing of the instant suit Dict. & corrected by me Sd/- P.K. Chakraborty Judge 26.7.06" Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the above order passed by the learned Judge, this revision application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the learned Court failed to appreciate the factual aspect and requirement of repairing of the suit premises by the petitioner and came to an incorrect findings by not allowing his entire prayer including the repairing of the collapsible gate at the entrance.
(3.) Mr. J. N. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order, on the fact of it, is lacking propriety and fairness. Mr. Chatterjee further contended that the learned Court ought to have considered the requirement of the petitioner for repairing the suit premises badly especially the collapsible gate at entrance. He has drawn attention of this Court to the report of the local inspection held upon direction of the learned Court and submitted that the report indicates clearly that their existed a collapsible gate at the entrance which was found broken at the time of inspection. Therefore, he contended, there was no reason at all for the learned Court for disallowing his prayer for refixing the collapsible gate at the entrance while it allowed the other repairing works sought to be done.;