Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) Heard learned advocate Mr Trivedi being assisted by Mr Upadhyay and Ms Tiwari representing the petitioner.
(2.) Though the case is at the motion stage, but being apprised of the very merit of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as filed assailing an order dated March 8, 2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 4th Court at Howrah (Tilak Raj Agarwal [HUF] v. Mahendra Kumar Jain) in Title Suit No.304 of 2005 in disposing of an application under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, this court finds that on apparent look of the order in consonance with the agreement between the parties there were some errors, particularly where learned trial court has fixed up the liability of arrears of rent under items no.1 and 3 in the operative part of the order impugned which requires revisit at the instance of both parties.
(3.) However, as fairly submitted by learned advocate that in terms of the agreement with the landlord, there being no dispute as regards fixation of the arrears mentioned in the operative part of the impugned order under column no.2; and that the amount of '65,076 for the period from January 2006 to February 2016 at the rate of '493 the petitioner is ready to deposit. But it is submitted that the amount has not been deposited till date because of filing of the revisional application, presumably, due to requirement of revisiting the order impugned.;