Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bikash Kundu vs Kartick Show & Anr on 20 January, 2012
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1 1.
20.01.2012 C.O. 889 of 2010 Bikash Kundu vs. Kartick Show & Anr.
Mr. Animesh Das ..For the petitioner.
Mr. Tapas Mukherjee ..For the Opposite party.
This revisional application is directed against Order No. 46 dated 4.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), 2nd Court, Howrah in T.S. No. 178 of 2005 by which the application under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is disposed of.
The opposite party filed a suit for declaration of title under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 against the petitioner.
In an application under section 7(2) of the said Act, the petitioner raised a dispute as to the period of default and further claimed for suspension of rent. It is specifically contended that the opposite party illegally and wrongfully disconnected the supply of electricity and as such, the petitioner is entitled to claim the suspension of rent.
The trial court found that the petitioner used to get the electricity from the meter of another engineering works and the supply of electricity was not one of the condition of the tenancy.
It is true that anything paid in lieu of the tenancy constitutes the rent as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Karnani Properties Limited vs. Miss Augustine reported in AIR 1957 SC 309. It has further been held in case of Chhote Lal vs Kenal Krishan Mehta reported in AIR 1971 SC 987 that the electricity charges being variable in nature does not constitute the rent.
It is not a case of the petitioner that there is an fixed amount of electricity charges which used to be paid by him to the opposite party and therefore, in absence of any positive case of such nature, it cannot be said that the electricity charges is one of the ingredients and constituent of the rent. Thus, the order of the trial court rejecting the claim of suspension of rent on account of 2 disconnection of supply of electricity cannot be said to be illegal and/or improper.
This revisional application is, therefore, devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
sd (Harish Tandon, J.)