Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application is directed against the order dated March 10, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 7th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.56 of 2005 and Title Suit No.114 of 2005.
(2.) THE mater relates to a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. THE landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground of, inter alia, default etc. against the tenant being the Title Suit No.114 of 2005 and the tenant filed a suit being the Title Suit No.56 of 2005 for declaration of his tenancy, right and other reliefs. THE two sits are being tried analogously. THE tenant filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and the landlord filed a written objection against that application. THE said application under Section 7(2) was disposed of by the impugned order directing the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as arrears of rent including interest by four equal instalments. Being aggrieved by such order, the tenant has filed this revisional application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order is should be sustained. Upon hearing the submission of the learned advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record I am of the view that the impugned order should be sustained. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions over the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. Upon analysis of evidence on record, I find that the learned Trial Judge had concluded that the tenant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as arrears of rent including interest and he disposed of the application accordingly. The tenant has contended that he is not a defaulter at all. He paid rent to the landlord and sometimes to his wife. But no rent receipt was granted. He has also contended that the electricity to his tenanted premises had been cut off by the C.E.S.C. and the landlord did not provide for electricity in his tenanted premises and for that reason, he has prayed for suspension of rent. He has also contended that the landlord took some loan from one Himadri Sarker to the tune of Rs.6500/- and he paid that amount and so, he is entitled to get an adjustment of the repayment of the loan by him on behalf of the landlord.
(3.) SO far as suspension of rent is concerned, the learned Trial Judge, upon analysis of the evidence on record has concluded that the supply of electricity had been disconnected by the C.E.S.C. because of non-payment of the electric charges. Admittedly, the tenant was getting electricity from the meter standing in the name of the landlord and such electric connection had been disconnected because of non-payment of the dues. When such a situation arose, the tenant had the opportunity to get electricity directly from the C.E.S.C. and for that reason, he is not entitled to get any suspension of payment of rent because it is also a source of income of landlord as per evidence on record. So far as repayment of loan on behalf of the landlord by the tenant to one Himadri Sarker is concerned, I find from the materials on record that Himadri Sarker is not a tenant at all under the same landlord. There is no proof that the tenant had repaid the loan on behalf of the landlord at the behest of the landlord. So, such contention of the tenant has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge.;