- (1.) This revisional application is directed against order dated 30th of June, 2011 passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court, 5th Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.302 of 2006.
(2.) The petitioner being plaintiff filed said suit for eviction against defendant tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, maintenance charges, municipal tax and commercial surcharge since April, 2003. The O. P. defendant filed an application under Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter to be referred as Act of 1997) denying those allegations and also denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner plaintiff filed written objection against said application. After contested hearing learned trial court held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but the defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent since April, 2003 as he deposited rents in the office of Rent Controller since April, 2003 to December, 2006 after plaintiff refused to accept rent by hand as well as through money orders. Learned trial court, however, opined that O. P. defendants were also liable to pay maintenance charges at the rate of Rs.52/- per month and also property tax and municipal surcharge and ordered the defendant tenants to pay maintenance charges for the period from April, 2003 to May, 2011 within a stipulated time frame by the order impugned. Learned trial court, however, observed that due amount of property tax and municipal surcharge payable by the tenants could not be ascertained due to insufficient data on that score.
(3.) Mr. Noelle Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner plaintiffs, submits that before depositing admitted rents in the office of the Rent Controller a tenant has to offer the rent to the landlord and on being refused he has to send the same to the landlord through money order and the money order being returned refused he has to deposit rent in the office of the Rent Controller. She submits that on each occasion a time frame was given in Section 21 of the Act of 1997. She, further, submits that in Section 22 of said Act the time limit for making deposits was also mentioned. According to her, though the plaintiff landlords denied said alleged tender and refusal, or sending of rent by money order but learned trial court did not make any elaborate discussion on this score. She next submits that in terms of agreements between the parties the advance rent of a month was required to be deposited within 10th of said month but the rents were deposited in the office of the Rent Controller mostly out of time as per time limits prescribed therein. According to her, the matter should be remanded back to the court below for considering these aspects de novo on the basis of materials already on record.;