PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order dated June 25, 4th 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.146 of 1998 thereby disposing of an application under Sections 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on contests by holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.146 of 1998 for eviction against the defendant / opposite party herein in respect of the premises in suit on the ground, inter alia, default and reasonable requirement. The plaintiff has contended that she had purchased the premises in suit from the original owners by a deed of sale dated February 10, 1993. The defendant is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint and he filed an application under Sections 17(2) and (2A) of the 1956 Act and that application was disposed of by the impugned order holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiff. 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 premises in suit comprises one room made of mud wall, tiled shed along with common user of bath and privy at premises no.165/1A, Kalighat Road under P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata � 700026. The parties to the suit adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions over the application under Sections 17(2) and (2A) of the 1956 Act. The learned Trial Judge has analysed the evidence on record. Admittedly, the premises in suit originally belonged to Samarendra Nath Haldar and two others, i.e., zamindars having 1/3rd share each. Admittedly, Ranibala Dasi was a thika tenant in respect of the premises in suit and she had sold the thika tenancy in respect of the premises in suit in favour of Smt. Angur Bala Dasi by a Deed of Sale executed in the year 1968. Angur Bala inducted the defendant as a tenant in 1988. It is also an admitted fact that the defendant / opposite party herein paid rent to the plaintiff from 1993 to May 1997. It is also an admitted position that the defendant had deposited rent for the premises in suit in favour of the plaintiff from June 1997 to June 1998 with the Rent Controller on the plea that the plaintiff had refused to accept rent for the month of June 1997.
(3.) THE contention of the plaintiff is that after the purchase of the premises in suit from the zamindars by a Deed of Sale dated February 10, 1993, she became the owner of the premises in suit. She made due attornment in 1993 and thereafter, the defendant / opposite party herein paid rent to him from 1993 to May 1997 directly. The defendant has contended that the premises in suit is a thika property and as such, the defendant is a direct tenant under the State of West Bengal. The plaintiff has denied such contentions. What I find from the materials on record that after the purchase by the plaintiff, attornment had been done and the defendant paid rents to the plaintiff from 1993 to May 1997 and thereafter, according to him, when the plaintiff refused to accept the rent, the defendant had deposited rent from June 1997 to June 1998 with the Rent Controller. The defendant has also contended that on June 18, 1998 Angur Bala issued a letter to the defendant claiming to be the thika tenant of the structure and she demanded arrears of rent and such letter has been marked Ext.4 in the 17(2) matter. As per defence version, Angur Bala collected rent from the defendant from 1985 to February 1988 marked Ext.1 series and as such, when Angur Bala demanded rent subsequently, he stopped making payment to the plaintiff. Therefore, from the admission of the defendant, I find that after February 1988, Angur Bala did not claim any rent from the defendant in respect of the premises in suit. On the other hand, as per materials on record, after attornment, the defendant started paying rent to the plaintiff from 1993 onwards. There is no proof that Angur Bala took any step against the defendant for eviction or otherwise for non- payment of rent after February 1988. The question whether the premises in suit is a thika tenancy property or not shall be decided at the time of trial. At present, we are concerned with the matter of Sections 17(2) and (2A) of the 1956 Act. Since, the defendant has admitted that he had paid rent to the plaintiff for the premises in suit after attornment up to May 1997 and thereafter, he had deposited rent with the Rent Controller in favour of the plaintiff from June 1997 to June 1998, I am of the view, this is a clear admission on the part of the defendant that he has admitted the plaintiff as his landlord in respect of the premises in suit. When such admission was made and the defendant paid rent to the plaintiff for a considerable period and also deposited rent with the Rent Controller on refusal by the plaintiff to accept rent, I am of the view that according to the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the tenant is estopped from denying the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.;