SUDHIR RANJAN DE Vs. TARAPROSAD CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application arises from an order of the Rent Controller, Calcutta under section 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The petitioner Sudhir Ranjan De is the owner of the premises bearing No. 17 Ganga Prosad Mukherjee Road. The premises has also been described as bearing No. 17a, Ganga Prosad Mukherjee Road. There is, however, no dispute now after the disposal of Second Appeal No. 91 of 1957 about the identity of the premises. The premises was held as a tenant by the apposite party Tarapada Chatterjee under the previous owner Mr. B. C. Sen and the present petitioner Sudhir Ranjan De has purchased the house in question from Mr. B. C. Sen and has therefore become the landlord of the apposite party. The tenant opposite party filed an application before the Controller under section 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on the 10th April, 1956 praying to the Controller to call upon the landlord to effect certain necessary repairs and in the event of the landlord not executing the repairs within a reasonable time, to grant permission to the tenant opposite party to effect repairs himself and to realise the cost out of the rent payable to the landlord. The landlord appeared before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller deputed an Inspector to inspect the premises and to report on the items of repairs necessary and he also heard both parties. On the 28th May, 1956 the landlord stated before the Controller that he was willing to carry out the repairs. He was therefore allowed time until 28. 6. 56 to complete the repairs. On the 28th June, 1956 a petition was filed by the landlord that unless the tenant vacated the premises it would not be possible to effect the repairs of the roof. The Controller, however, quite rightly pointed out that under section 34 of the Act he could not direct the tenant to vacate the premises, but he allowed further time until 21. 7. 56 to the landlord to complete the repairs of the roof. On the 28th August, 1956 the parties appeared and the landlord claimed that he had effected the repairs but the tenant stated that the roof had not been properly repaired and the Inspector was directed to go again to the premises and submit a report. In view of the Inspector's report the learned Controller held that repairs to the roof were not complete and he thereupon took evidence as to the amount of cost that might be required to complete the repairs satisfactorily and he then passed an order on the 13th September, 1956, in which he specified that the sum of Rs. 797-8-0 would be required to carry out the repairs and he directed the tenant to effect the repairs himself at a cost not exceeding the amount specified in the order and to recover the amount in two yearly installments of Rs. 393-12-0 out of two years' rent.

(2.) AGAINST that decision the landlord preferred an appeal before the District Judge which was heard by Sri M. K. Roy, Subordinate Judge, Alipore. There was also a cross objection by the tenant that the amount specified by the Controller was too low and that higher amount should have been specified by him as the amount which might be spent on effecting the necessary repairs. The learned Subordinate Judge however, dismissed the appeal as well as cross appeal and confirmed the order of the Controller passed under sec. 34 of the Tenancy Act. Accordingly the landlord has preferred the present revisional application

(3.) MR. Arun Kishore Das Gupta appearing for the landlord petitioner has urged two points. The first point urged by him is that the repair to the roof as was ordered by the Controller did not come within the category of ordinary repairs to keep the building wind and water tight but amounted to partial building or rebuilding and that it was not within the competence of the Controller to order such repairs to be effected or permit the tenant to effect such repairs at his own cost and recover the money out of rent.