Decided on April 25,1996

Sri. Utpal Bhattacharjee And Anr. Appellant
Shrimati Kalpana Roy Chowdhury Respondents


Visheshwar Nath Khare, J. - (1.)This application in revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah, dated May 3, 1991, whereby he rejected the application of the plaintiffs/petitioners about the maintainability of the application filed by the defendant/opposite party Mrs. Kalpana Roy Chowdhury.
(2.)It appears that the disputed house was originally owned by one Dr. Ashru Kumar Roy of which one Ganendra Roy Chowdhury was the tenant. It further appears that there was some sort of agreement between Dr. Ashru Kumar Roy and Ganendra Roy Chowdhury to the effect that Ganendra Roy Chowdhury would vacate the premises. Under such circumstances, Dr. Ashru Kumar Roy filed a suit for ejectment of Ganendra Roy Chowdhury, the tenant. Subsequently, on Dec. 12, 1986, the plaintiffs/petitioners purchased the disputed house from Dr. Ashru Kumar Roy through a registered deed of sale. After having purchased the said house, the petitioners moved an application for substitution of their names in the suit so filed against Ganendra Roy Chowdhury. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the tenant Ganendra Roy Chowdhury and other members of his family, excepting Sm. Kalpana Roy Chowdhury, vacated the disputed premises. However, subsequently, Sm. Kalpana Roy Chowdhury filed an application for being impleaded as defendant in the said suit. The Court permitted the impleadment of Sm. Kalpana Roy Chowdhury and the said order is said to be confirmed by this Court as well by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, Sm. Kalpana Roy Chowdhury moved an application before the Court for deposit of rent accompanied with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. This was objected by the plaintiffs/petitioners. The plaintiffs/petitioners, objection/application was rejected by the learned trial Court without giving any reason. It is against this order that the plaintiffs/petitioners have come to this Court and this is how this application in revision has come before me.
(3.)The learned Counsel for the applicants urged that once the objection of the plaintiffs/petitioners about the maintainability, without recording any reason, has been rejected, it tantamounts to acceptance of the defendant as a tenant of the disputed premises entitled to deposit the rent under Sec. 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which ought not to have been done by the learned trial Court in the manner it was sought to be done. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party took me to the merits of the matter and urged that Smt. Kalpana Roy Chowdhury is the tenant and as such was entitled to move the application under Sec. 17 of the Act along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

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