TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6th of September, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Additional Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.305 79 of 2006. It is the case of the petitioner defendant that O. P.s filed said suit for eviction against the petitioner defendant on the ground of default and other grounds. The petitioner defendant appeared in said suit and filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1979 (hereafter to be referred as Act of 1997) praying for determination of the dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and for ascertaining the arrear rent, if any, and for permission to deposit the same in easy instalments. Learned trial court disposed of said application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the petitioner defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent since September, 1999. By the order impugned the petitioner defendant was permitted to deposit the arrear rent as calculated by the learned trial court in two installments. Being aggrieved with said order the petitioner defendant has filed this revisional application.
(2.) MR . Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya appearing for the petitioner tenant submits that trial court declared the deposits made by the petitioner tenant in the office of rent controller for the period from September, 1999 till August, 10 as invalid deposits as the same was made in the name of one of plaintiff landlords and the same was not preceded by valid tender. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that admittedly O. P. Plaintiff No.2 Gouri Kar used to issue rent receipts after accepting rent from the petitioner defendant tenant. He next submits that on refusal to accept rent on the part of Gouri Kar the petitioner tenant started to send the same by money order from March, 1992 which was duly accepted by O. P. plaintiff No.2 Gouri Kar till August, 1999. He further submits that as O. P. petitioner No.2 refused to accept rent on and from September, 1999 sent by money order, the petitioner defendant tenant was compelled to deposit the same in the office of the rent controller, Calcutta from the month of September, 1999 till August, 2006. He submits that the rent was started to be deposited in the office of rent Controller from the month of September, 1999 as the rent for September, 1999 sent on 7th of October, 1999 through money order was returned refused. According to him, learned trial court was palpably wrong to hold that the deposits in the rent Controller staring from the month of September, 1999 was not preceded by valid tender.
(3.) HE next submits that rent receipts were granted all along by the O. P. plaintiff No.2 Gouri and she also accepted rents sent through money order in her name alone from the month of March, 1992 till August, 1999. He contends that subsequent deposits in the office of rent controller staring from September, 1999 cannot be branded as invalid deposits being deposited in the name of one of the landlords. In support of his contention he refers the case of Nawal Kishore Agarwalla vs. Samarendra Nath Shaw as reported in 1988 (1) CLJ page 34. In that case it was held by this court relying upon a decision of Hon 'ble Apex Court as reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court page 354 (State of A. P. and another vs. K. Anil Kumar etc.) that rents deposited by the tenant with the rent Controller in the name of one of the plaintiffs are valid deposits as the same can be withdrawn by the said landlord and that the same tantamount to payment to all the landlords. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order impugned by treating the deposits made in the office of Rent Controller for the period September, 1999 till August, 2010 as valid deposits.;