Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pannalal Jhawar vs The Rampuria Estate Private Limited on 17 December, 2018
Author: Biswajit Basu
Bench: Biswajit Basu
1 04,SL,Ct.21. 17.12.2018
AJ.
C.O. 3287 of 2017 Pannalal Jhawar
-Vs-
The Rampuria Estate Private Limited Mr. Subharajit Chakraborty.
......for the petitioner.
Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tiwari.
....for the opposite party.
The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a defendant/tenant in a suit for eviction under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' in short) and is directed against the Orders dated April 27, 2016 and April 07, 2017 passed by the learned 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 11 of 2010.
The learned Trial Judge by the Order No. 42 dated April 27, 2016, the first order impugned in the present revisional application, disposed of an application under Section 7(2) of the said Act.
The petitioner by filing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure sought modification of the said Order No. 42 dated April 27, 2016. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application of the petitioner by the order No. 55 dated April 7, 2017 which is the second order under challenge in the present revisional application.
The plaintiff/opposite party initiated a proceeding under Section 17 of the said Act for fixation of fair rent in respect of the suit property being R.C 2 Case No. 26 of 2009, the Additional Rent Controller by the order dated December 11, 2009 dispose of the said case by fixing fair rent of the suit property at Rs. 4200/- plus maintenance charges @ 10% i.e. Rs. 420/- per month together with the proportioned Municipal Tax and Commercial Surcharge as per the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and from January, 2010 the fair rent so fixed was given effect to. The Additional Rent Controller by the said order directed the petitioner to liquidate the arrear rent for the month of October, 2009 till December, 2009 by three equal monthly installments, payable along with the monthly rent from the month of January, 2010.
The petitioner on November 9, 2010 filed the application under Section 7(1) of the said Act seeking permission to deposit the rent @ Rs. 2,648 per month together with statutory interest @ 10% per annum. The learned Trial Judge permitted the petitioner to make such deposit at his own risk.
The learned Trial Judge after taking into consideration of the order of the Additional Rent Controller passed in the said R.C Case No. 26 of 2009 calculated the arrear rent together with the statutory interest @ 10% per annum, assessed the total amount of arrear rent payable from April, 2008 to January, 2016 at Rs. 5,88,301.00 and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount with the statutory interest @ 10% per annum on the said amount of arrear rent, totaling a sum of Rs. 8,01,283.60 by 24 installments together with current rent within 15th day of each succeeding month. 3
The petitioner contested the proceeding for fixation of fair rent in respect of the suit property before the Additional Rent Controller.
The petitioner after fixation of the fair rent in respect of the suit property in the said proceeding is not entitled to raise dispute regarding rate of rent payable in respect of the suit property again in the eviction suit.
The learned Trial Judge simply calculated the arrear rents in terms of the order passed in the aforementioned proceeding.
This Court, therefore, does not find any illegality and/or infirmity in the order dated April 27, 2016 and is affirmed accordingly.
The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the order No. 42 dated April 27, 2016 holding that there is no arithmetical or typographical error in the said order.
This Court also does not find any such error in the order No. 42 dated April 27, 2016 warranting modification of the said order.
This Court, therefore, also does not find any infirmity in the order No. 55 dated April 7, 2017.
In view of the discussion made above C.O. 3287 of 2017 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)