Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Dismissed) vs M/S Mahima Consultants Private Limited on 26 April, 2016
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
1 26.04.2016 CO 1039 of 2016 Court No. 05 Item No. SL-04 The Trush Estate Khimji Keshawji snandy Represented by Pravin K. Popat & Ors. (DISMISSED) Vs. M/s Mahima Consultants Private Limited Ms. Noelle Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Dipak Dey, Advocate Ms. Rimpa Rajpal, Advocate ...For the Petitioner In this revisional application the landlord has assailed an order passed by the Sixth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, filed by the opposite party by which the defendant was directed to deposit certain amount towards arrears rent with interest in favour of the plaintiff.
The Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record as well as the averments made in paragraph 4 of the application under Section 7(2) of the Act held that the rent for October 2012 was tendered through money order dated October 12, 2012 and the same was returned with the endorsement 'refused'. Similarly, rent for November 2012 was sent vide money order dated October 5, 2012 and the same was also refused.
The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the provision of Section 21 of the Code was not taken into consideration.
It appears from the materials on record that for the previous months the plaintiff did not accept the rent, which goes to show that the plaintiff was reluctant to accept the rent, which clearly corroborates the averments, made in paragraph 4 of the petition.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Popat & Kotecha Property Vs. Ashim Kumar Dey reported in 2014 (4) CHN (Cal) 614 and submits that at the time of 2 deciding an application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1972, the Court is required to decide whether deposits made in the office of the Rent Controller were valid or not when Special Reference of Sections 21 and 22.
I have considered the said judgement. In my view the said judgment do not assist the petitioners having regard to the fact that although the cheque was sent to the plaintiff but he did not encash the cheque and there is a categorical statement in the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition to that effect. It is also not in dispute that the rent for October was sent through money order and the same was returned with the endorsement 'refused' and similar was the fate for rent for the month of November 2012.
Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The revisional application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Soumen Sen, J.) 3