- (1.) THESE three revisional applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against three separate orders passed by the learned Judge of the appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 42 of 2011. The applications were heard one after the other and I propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order.
(2.) FACTS leading to the orders impugned in the revisional applications filed by the parties may be noted first.
(3.) A suit for eviction (Ejectment Suit No.61 of 2006) was instituted by Dr. Ms. Tapati Mukherjee (hereafter the plaintiff) against Sri Chanchal Goswami (hereafter the defendant) seeking his eviction from the suit property i.e. a flat measuring more or less 1200 sq.ft. comprised of three rooms, one kitchen, one bath room cum privy and one balcony, situate at Hindusthan Park, Kolkata - 700019. Eviction of the defendant was prayed for on twin grounds, viz. (i) default in payment of rent by the defendant attracting Section 6(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter the Act); and acquisition of a flat by the defendant at Keyatala Road, Kolkata - 700029 thereby attracting Section 6(1)(j) of the Act. Prior to institution of the suit, the defendant had been depositing monthly rent in the office of the Controller. Despite being served with summons of the suit, he continued to deposit rent in the office of the Controller. He had filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Act. The learned Judge of the trial Court took up the said application for consideration and upon hearing the parties, vide order no.18 dated March 23, 2007, disposed of the same returning a finding that rent deposited in the office of the Controller by the defendant was valid and that there has been no default in payment of rent. The defendant was directed to deposit current rent within 15th of each month.;