Raghunath Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) THE hearing stems from an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the defendant / petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 19.02.2008, 21.04.2009 and 08.09.2009 passed by Smt. Madhuchhanda Bose, Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court at Alipore in T.S. No. 44 of 2007.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Smt. Shefali Poddar filed a suit for eviction under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The petitioner / defendant filed an application under Section 17(2) of W.B.P.T. Act inter alia denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned Court below vide her order dated 19.02.2008 dispose of the said application under Section 17(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act holding that petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent. The learned Court below has not decided the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the litigacy. Opposite party/landlord filed an application under Section 17(3) of the Act and said petition was disposed of. Petitioner / defendant came to know about the fate of his application under Section 17(2) of the Act filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for recalling the order dated 1`9.02.2008 which was rejected. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order petitioner / defendant filed the instant revisional application. The instant revisional application was contested by the opposite party / plaintiff. It was pointed out by the learned Lawyer appearing for the plaintiff / opposite party that in paragraph 6 of the application defendant / tenant admitted that he was a tenant under the present plaintiff. I have gone through the paragraph 6. Though in my opinion the paragraph 6 was not drafted properly yet from the entire petition it appears that defendant / tenant used to pay rent to the earlier landlady Smt. Kaushalya Poddar and Smt. Kaushalya Poddar never informed the tenant that she has already sold away the property to the present plaintiff.
(3.) LEARNED Lawyer for the opposite party/ plaintiff also referred to a decision reported in (1976) 4 SCC 1966 I have gone through the said reported decision of Honble Apex Court and in my opinion the said decision is not applicable in the instant application. LEARNED Lawyer for the petitioner/tenant filed a decision reported in AIR 1985 Calcutta 83 I have gone through the said decision carefully. Admittedly tenant / petitioner has challenged the relationship of landlord or tenant. According to the petitioner he used to tender rent to the erstwhile landlord and she accepted the rent. Even rent was tendered to her by money order which she refused. Meanwhile present plaintiff after purchasing the property from Smt. Kaushalya Devi filed the instant suit for eviction.;