Basudev Panigrahi, J. - (1.) This revisional application arises out of an order passed in Title Suit No. 124 of 1993 pending before the Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipur partly allowing the prayer of the Petitioner under Ss. 17(2) and 17(2A), (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
(2.) The opposite party instituted the suit against the Petitioner for eviction from the suit premises on the ground of default, the reasonable requirement addition, alteration and violation of (m), (o) and (p) of Sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Petitioner, on being served with the summons of the suit, filed the written statement, inter alia, denying all the allegations of the plaint. During pendency of the suit the Petitioner has also filed an independent application under Ss. 17(2) and 17(2A) and (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and has, inter alia, alleged that the predecessor in interest of the Petitioner, Late Gour Mohan Pal was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by late Setangini Debi in or "about 1942 with one small shop room. The predecessor in interest of the Petitioner used to pay rent @ Rs. 30.00 per month to Debasish Roy and Arup Roy after demise of Setangini Debi. The Petitioner has, in his application, stated that the opposite party was never the landlord of the suit premises and therefore he has seriously disputed about his right to collect rent of the suit premises. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, held the Petitioner not as a defaulter but so far as the landlord right is concerned, it has deferred to consider the same at the time of hearing of the suit.
(3.) Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has, at the outset, highlighted that it was imperative for the Court to decide when an application is filed under Ss. 17(2) and 2(A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as to the relationship of the landlord and tenant. Without first deciding such relationship the trial court should not have taken up the issue as regards the default alleged to have been made by the Defendant. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Jayantilal v/s. Smt. Indira Hazra : A.I.R. 1985 Cal. 83 where it has been held: In the...it has been held that any kind of dispute which affects the amount of rent payable by the tenant, including a dispute as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties will be a dispute under or within the contemplation of Sec. 17(2) of the Act. It has been further held that the Court has to determine who is the landlord to whom the amount in question is to be paid and the dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant, which obviously involves and raises the question as to whether the particular Plaintiff is the landlord of the particular Defendant even though the latter may be the tenant of the premises in question, would plainly be a dispute which will have to be decided before the question contemplated under Sub -section (2) can be finally answered. The denial of relationship of landlord and tenant will necessarily mean that the tenant's contention is that no rent is payable to the particular Plaintiff, who claims to be landlord, or, in other words, that he disputes the Plaintiff's claim for rent, and, accordingly, it will come well within the phrase 'dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant' in the context particularly of the further provisions that the Court should determine what is the amount payable to the particular landlord by the particular tenant. The Single Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case has held that the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant will necessarily mean that the tenant's contention is that no rent is payable to the particular Plaintiff, who claims to be the landlord, or in other words, that he disputes the Plaintiff's claim for rent, and, accordingly, it will come well within the phrase 'dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant' in the context particularly of the further provisions that the Court should determine what is the amount payable to the particular landlord by the tenant. Admittedly, in this case on a cursory glance of the trial court's order it appears that the trial Court has not answered the issue in either way and deferred to consider the same at the time of hearing of the suit. Therefore, such order, in view of the aforementioned decision, cannot be affirmed in this revision. Accordingly, the revisional application succeeds and the trial Court is directed to decide as to the rights of the opposite party/Plaintiff as his landlord so as to clothe him with a right to collect rent from the Petitioner/Defendant.;