- (1.) Challenge is to the Order No.39 dated September 14, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Asansol in Title Suit No.29 of 2009 thereby disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs / opposite parties herein instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant/petitioner herein before the learned Trial Judge on the ground of, inter alia, default and causing damage. The defendant/petitioner after receiving the summons of the suit entered an appearance and submitted a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the plaint. He also filed an application under Section 7(1) and another application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 contending, inter alia, that the rate of rent is Rs.320/- per month including electricity charges and the plaintiff declined to accept the rent from the defendant after February 2002 and as such, he was compelled to tender rent by money order with the Rent Controller and then to deposit rent with the Court after appearance in the suit. So, he has filed the application under Section 7(2) of the said Act for determination of the rent and the quantum of arrears of rent to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. That application was disposed of by the learned Trial Judge by passing the impugned order holding that the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent for a period of 127 months since February 2002 to till date at the rate of Rs.320/- per month and thus, he has directed to defendant/petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.44,704/- inclusive of interest. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
(3.) Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, in my view, the impugned order cannot be sustained. While filing the suit for eviction, the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein has described that the rate of rent for the premises in suit is Rs.350/- per month and not Rs.320/- as contended by the defendant.;