SM. MEENA SHARMA Vs. SM. SNIGDHA MITRA
LAWS(CAL)-1996-3-64
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 28,1996

Sm. Meena Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
Sm. Snigdha Mitra Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KRISHNA GOPAL GHOSHAL V. MIHIR BARAN NANDY AND ORS. REPORTED IN [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL SHAW V. KNNAILAL PAKHIRA REPORTED IN [REFERRED TO]
B P KHEMKA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BIRENDRA KUMAR BHOWMICK [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.)Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ganesh Srivastava and the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Partha Datta appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Md. Manzurul Haque. Considered the materials on record.
(2.)The tenant defendant as the petitioner has made this application under Sec. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging Order No. 43, dated 4 5 95 passed by the learned Munsif. 2nd Court, Sealdah, 24-Parganas (South), in Title Suit No 500 of 1990, whereby the learned Munsif rejected the application of the tenant defendant, made under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for condonation of delay in depositing the rent, on a finding that the Court has no jurisdiction to condone such delay as the deposit has been made before the Rent Controller. So, the entire question in this revision centres round the question of jurisdiction. Before dealing with that, a short recital of the fact leading to this revision is necessary to be enumerated. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the tenant under the opposite party in respect of the property in suit at a monthly rental of Rs. 700.00. For the purpose of evicting the tenant, the landlord has brought the suit for eviction before the Court of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Sealdah, being Title Suit No. 500 of 1990 The suit was brought originally on the ground of default. Subsequently by amendment of the plaint a further ground has been added i. e. the ground of reasonable requirement. Admittedly, the tenant defendant did not make any application before the trial Court under Sec. 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act Prior to the institution of the suit, the tenant defendant deposited the rent in terms of Sec. 21(1)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Even after the institution of the suit, the tenant paid the rent in the same way as has been alleged by the tenant defendant (petitioner herein) in his revisional application In depositing the rent for the month of Feb. 1991, Nov. 1992, Aug. 1993 and Nov. 993. the tenant could not deposit the said rent within the 15th of the next month and the rent for the month of Feb. 1991 was deposited on 26th March, 1991. Similarly, the rent for the month of Nov. 1992 was deposited on 17th Dec., 1992, the rent for Aug. 1993 was deposited on 16th Sept. 1993 and the rent for Nov. 1993 was deposited on 17th Dec., 1993. For the purpose of condoning the delay in depositing the said rent, the tenant made an application before the Trial Court on or about 12th Jan., 1995 The said application was opposed by the landlord raising the question of jurisdiction of law as taken in Paragraph 3 of that written objection.
(3.)Be that as it may. the landlord made another application under Sec. 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956, alleging, inter alia, that the tenant had neither deposited the arrear of rent nor the current rent. That application is awaiting adjudication
;


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