Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated August 12, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.115 of 1997 thereby rejecting an application for repair of the premises in suit.
(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being T. S. No.115 of 1997 against the petitioner. THE petitioner entered appearance in the said suit and he is contesting the same by filing a written statement denying all the materials allegations. He filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for repairing the premises in suit stating, inter alia, that the property is in damaged condition and the plaintiff has also admitted that the property is in damaged condition and so he has prayed for repair of the same at his own cost. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point for decision that arises is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff instituted the said suit for eviction of the defendant from the premises in suit. The plaintiff has described the schedule of the property in the plaint and from such schedule of the property it appears that the premises in suit is a chhitebera tiled shed. The plaintiff has clearly stated in the plaint that the suit premises is in damaged condition. Now, the defendant wants to repair of the said premises in suit. If I peruse the schedule of the work to be done for repair, it will appear that the defendant has, virtually, wanted to make a new construction in the name of repairs. He has stated in paragraph A of the schedule of the petitioner for repair appearing at page no.14 of the application. He has wanted to repair the tiled shed roof with its bamboo frame (chala) which are broken and replacement of broken tiles and its bamboo frame (chala). The defendant has also wanted to change the Chhitebera wall of all portions of the room with its bamboo pillars as it is being damaged and deteriorated day after day. If the repair work is allowed to be performed, it will nothing but construction of a new room in place of old one. The plaintiff has sought for eviction on one of the grounds that the property is in damaged condition. The defendant has wanted to deal with the land of the plaintiff as his own and he has wanted to make a new construction in that place in the name of repair of the same. The defendant cannot be permitted to do so in the name of repair.
(3.) IT is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant does not reside at the suit premises and he resides at his own house at 50/37, Bidyapith Road, P.O. Birati under P.S. Nimta, Kolkata 700 051 and that he does not pay any rent to the petitioner. Having considered all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. The order impugned should be supported. There is nothing to interfere with the impugned order.;