Jyotirmoyee Nag, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against Order No. 54 dated 8-10-80, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Diamond Harbour in Title Suit No. 540 of 1976.
(2.) The petitioner is a tenant under the opposite party in respect of certain structures, constructed by the landlord opposite party on Plots Nos. 375 and 382. These plots of land are by the side of Diamond Harbour Road, the rent of the premises being Rs. 80/- per month, the area of the tenanted structures being 30 ft. X 20 ft. The Plot No. 375 is the khas land of the Irrigation Department of the Government of West Bengal and it is a way side land. A portion of the said premises standing on Plot No. 375 and measuring 8 ft. X 20 ft. was demolished by the Government of West Bengal for keeping the space open by the road side and as a result of demolition the size of the tenanted structures as let out initially to the petitioner has been considerably reduced and the truncated structure is now standing on the floor area of 20 ft. X 20 ft. The opposite party landlord filed a suit being Title Suit No, 540 of 1976 in the Second Court of Munsif at Diamond Harbour for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of reasonable requirement. This suit was filed on 21-9-76. Summons of the suit was served on 19-11-76 and thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Sections 17 (1) and 17 (2) on 19-11-76, In the application under Section 17(2) the petitioner prayed for abatement of rate of rent on account of reduction in the size of the tenanted portion of the premises. The learned Munsif was pleased to reject the petitioner's application under Section 17 (2) inter alia, and found that (a) The defendant did not break down the suit premises or any part of it. The State Government has done the work of demolition; (b) There is no dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties with regard to the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises; (c) That the work of demolition was done by the Public Works Department with the help of Police Personnel and others and it was done with a view to removing structures on the lands which fell within 20 ft. on either side of the road; (d) As Government accepted rent from the plaintiff, Government cannot be treated as title paramount at the time of demolition of the suit structures; (e) That it is not disputed that the implied covenant under Section 108 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act protects against lawful acts but not tortious interruptions and in case of protection of the lessee from title paramount, this covenant is unqualified; (f) That the defendant is not entitled to any proportionate abatement of rent; that the Government cannot be held to be title paramount in the instant case, therefore the defendant should pay all arrears of rent at the admitted rate of Rs. 80/- per month; (g) As the deposit made by the tenant defendant cover the entire amount of arrears with statutory interests thereon, it is not necessary to direct the defendant to make any further deposits.
(3.) Against the impugned order of the learned Munsif the petitioner has come up in revision.;