- (1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.18 dated August 28, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.57 of 2007 thereby disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
(2.) The plaintiff instituted the said suit for ejectment and recovery of possession on the ground of default. He is a member of Hindu undivided family. The defendant / opposite party is contesting the said suit. He filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The plaintiff contended that the rents deposited by the defendant is in the personal name of the Kallu Babu Lalchand and as such the deposits are invalid. So, the orders impugned relating to disposal of application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 should be sustained. Being aggrieved by the order on the said petition, 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 learned Trial Judge has categorically observed that the rent receipts granted by Kallu Babu Lalchand do not disclose that he is collecting rents on behalf of the Hindu undivided family. But, he was collecting rent on his behalf. The defendant also contended that the Kallu Babu Lalchand never granted any receipt as representing the karta and manager of the Hindu undivided family. Even he issued a notice in one occasion. Though a letter dated February 10, 2003 was issued by the plaintiff, yet after issuing of such letter, the rent receipts were granted in the name of the landlord as Kallu Babu Lalchand and therefore, the rent receipts issued post February 10, 2003 do not indicate that the plaintiff, i.e., the Hindu undivided family in the landlord. There is no dispute that the rent was paid directly to Kallu Babu Lalchand up to the month of June, 2004 and there was a dispute whether rent was paid for the month of July, 2004 by hand and for that reason since there was no rent receipt, the Court observed that arrear of rent is only for the month of July, 2004.;