NRIPENDRA MOHAN GHOSH CHOWDHURY Vs. TRIPTI RANI CHAKRABORTY
LAWS(CAL)-1976-7-32
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 07,1976

Nripendra Mohan Ghosh Chowdhury Appellant
VERSUS
Tripti Rani Chakraborty Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ARUN KUMAR CHATTERJEE VS. KARUNA RAKSHIT [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DWARKADAS RAGHIUBIR PROSAD CHOUDHURI VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1987-5-23] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.)The Defendant tenant obtained the present Rule against the order of the learned Munsif, First Additional Court, Alipur, disposing of his two applications under Sub -section (2) and (2A) of Sec. 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order of the learned Munsif rejecting the Defendant's petition under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.)Mr. Bagchi, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has submitted before me that, in the instant case, the learned Munsif has acted illegally by directing the Defendant tenant to deposit an amount equivalent to rent for 51 months commencing from April 1960. According to Mr. Bagchi, the Court had no jurisdiction under Sub -sections (2) and (2A) to direct the Defendant tenant to deposit amounts of rent which had become barred by limitation at the date of the institution of the suit in question. In my view, this contention of Mr. Bagchi should be sustained. In fact, Mr. Pal, the learned Advocate for the opposite parties, did not dispute the well -settled principle that under Sub -section (1), (2) or (2A) time -barred rent need not be paid or deposited. The rent which is are legally recoverable are liable to be deposited or paid under these provisions of law.
(3.)In the above view, it is not necessary for me to consider the next submission of Mr. Bagchi that the learned Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by disallowing the Defendant tenant's claim that he was entitled to adjust the costs of repairs of the premises allegedly incurred by him against the rent payable for the period from April 1960 to August 1960. At the date of the institution of the suit the rent for the period from April 1960 to August 1960 had become time -barred and therefore, it is unnecessary to determine whether the claim of the tenant for the adjustment of the costs allegedly incurred by him for effecting of repairs against the rent of the said period should be allowed or not.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.