PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the Order No.17 dated May 18, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, 5th Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.56 of 2006-E thereby disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
(2.) THE plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.56 of 2006-E against the defendants for ejectment and other reliefs, inter alia, on the ground of default in respect of the premises in suit. The defendants are contesting the said suit denying the material allegations raised in the plaint and it is their specific contention that the plaintiff / opposite party herein is not their landlord. They have also contended that they are not defaulters as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, they filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions and upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has held that the defendants are liable to pay rent since June 2000 at the rate of Rs.105/- along with statutory interest. The learned Trial Judge directed the defendants / petitioners herein to deposit a sum of Rs.9,659.65 as arrears of rent together with interest within one month from the date of order. Being aggrieved by such order, this application has been preferred. 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 plaintiff / opposite party herein has stated in the plaint that he was also a tenant in respect of a shop room at the suit property and thereafter, he had purchased the suit property from the erstwhile landlord. Thus, the plaintiff had become the owner of the premises in suit. The plaintiff has contended that the previous landlord issued a letter of attornment on transfer and such letter of attornment was duly received by the defendants, but, in spite of that, the defendants did not pay any rent to the plaintiff / opposite party herein.
(3.) ON the other hand, the defendants have contended that they had no knowledge of such purchase and they came to know the fact of purchase of the premises in suit after the institution of the suit. It may be mentioned herein that the defendants run a shop at the suit property and admittedly, they were tenants under the previous landlord from whom the plaintiff had purchased the suit property. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions and from the deposition of the defendants, I find that the defendants / petitioners herein have contended that the plaintiff was never the owner of the suit property and that they came to know about the alleged purchase of the plaintiff for the first time from the plaint. During the cross-examination, the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff has been residing in the suit property for about 10 to 12 years and that he came to know from the Rent Controller that the plaintiff / opposite party herein is not the owner of the suit property. But, this statement, I find, has no basis at all. During the cross-examination, the defendant has admitted that he came to know that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit premises. This admission of the defendant, I hold, is enough to determine the relationship between the parties.;