- (1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against order no.104 dated 7th June, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Paschim Medinipore in O.S. No.55/1998.
(2.) It appears that by the order impugned, ld. trial court disposed of the applications filed u/s.17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 filed by the petitioner defendant tenant by observing that there was relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant and that the rate of rent was Rs.500/ - p.m. and that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent since December, 1993. Mr. Bag, ld. advocate appearing for the petitioner tenant vehemently argues that the order impugned is not sustainable as the suit land was a vested land. He further submits that the petitioner filed an application before the appropriate authority for a long term lease of the suit property which was also sanctioned by the competent authority. He submits that though said order of sanction later on recalled but fact remains that it was a government land and that the O.P. plaintiff was not owner of the same and as such he had no right to claim to be landlord of the petitioner defendant. Mr. Bhattacharya appearing for the O.P. on the other hand submits that the petitioner defendant filed those applications admitting O.P. as his landlord though he raised some dispute about the extent of tenancy as well as rate of rent and also ownership of the O.P. landlord. He submits that both the parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective claims and that it came out that the petitioner defendant was a tenant under the O.P. plaintiff at a rental of Rs.500/ - p.m. in respect of the suit premises and that he defaulted in payment of rent since December, 1993. He submits that the petitioner being a tenant has no authority to question the authority of his landlord to collect rent or to deny the ownership of his landlord. I have considered the submissions made by the ld. advocates for the parties. Perused the order impugned. It appears that on the basis of a written agreement dated 31st December, 1991 the petitioner took tenancy of the suit premises under the O.P. plaintiff at a rental of Rs.500/ - p.m. It also appears that though the petitioner tenant moved rent controller for assessment of fair rent and rent controller assessed a fair rent but the same was set aside by the competent authority in Misc. Appeal No.53/1994. It also appears that the wife of the petitioner defendant prayed for taking a long term lease of the suit property and there were writ petition and order of appropriate authority but ultimately no order of long terms lease has yet been made in favour of the petitioner tenants wife. It appears that the ld. trial court have taken note of all those facts as put forward by the parties in the application and written objection and came to a definite finding of fact as stated above. I do not find least perversity in the order impugned calling for interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) It appears from the order dated 19th July, 2011 that at the time of admission of this application there was a direction upon the petitioner tenant to make payment of arrear rent as per impugned order and the first instalment had to be paid by 22nd July, 2011 without fail and that other conditions imposed in that impugned order should remain in force and that all those payments would abide by the result of this application. As such no further order is called for regarding payment of arrear of rent or other payment.;