Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the Order No.224 dated December 3, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No.56 of 1994 thereby disposing of an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.56 of 1994 for recovery of possession against the opposite party on the ground of default, reasonable requirement etc. before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah.
(2.) THE defendant is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. It is the specific contention of the defendant that in January 1996, he went to see his ailing mother at Barasat and stayed there for some days keeping the premises in suit under lock and key. On his return, he found that the main entrance of the door of the property in suit was kept under lock and key fixed by the plaintiff. He at once requested the plaintiff to remove the padlock on the main entrance door but in vain. So, he prayed for suspension of rent, although, he is paying rent as per provisions of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The plaintiff has denied of such allegations of putting the padlock on the main entrance. His contention is that the defendant was transferred to Durgapur and elsewhere and he shifted his belongings elsewhere and he kept the premises in suit under lock and key leaving minimum belongings at the premises in suit and thus, the defendant is causing damage to the suit premises by its non-use for a long period. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge allowed the prayer of the defendant for suspension of rent from January 1996 to December 2010, that is, for 179 months and directed the defendant for re-entry in the premises in suit forthwith failing which the remission of the future rent payable would be extended by the corresponding period for which the obstruction to the defendants entry continues on and from the date of order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
(3.) NOW, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties with regard to the premises in suit is not in dispute. The quantum of rent is not also a matter of dispute. It is not in dispute that the defendant is paying rent for the premises in suit in compliance with Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. NOW, the question to be decided if the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the orders for suspension of the rent for such long period. It may be pointed out that the tenant has contended that the landlord had put a padlock on the main entrance in January 1996 and since then he could not enter into the premises in suit. Previously, the tenant filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C., Annexure P1 praying for directing the plaintiff to remove the padlock fixed by the plaintiff on the main entrance of the suit property and for restoration of possession of the premises in suit to the defendant. That application was filed after two years from the so-called month of putting the padlock in January 2006. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved in such contention and rejected the application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. No revision was preferred against that order and so, that order had attained finality. Thereafter, in September 1998, the tenant filed another application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for suspension of rent over which the impugned order was passed.;