The main legal point established is the requirement for a bona fide and fact-specific dispute under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the obligation of the plaintiffs to establish their entitlement to receive rent from the defendant as the landlord.

JUDGMENT :

Biswajit Basu, J.

1. The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the tenant/defendant in suit for recovery of possession under the provisions of Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' in short) and is directed against the Order No. 18 dated July 13, 2018 passed by the First Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah in Title Suit No. 143 of 2010.

2. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned in the present revisional application dismissed an application filed by the defendant/tenant under Section 7(2) of the said Act, holding that the dispute raised in the said application as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant is sham and has also struck out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession for non-compliance of the provision of Section 7(1) of the said Act.

3. It is now settled that in a suit for eviction under Section 6 of the said Act a dispute can be raised by the defendant by filing an application under Section 7(2) of the said Act that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant but in order to bring the said 'dispute' within the sweep of Section 7(2) of the said Act the dispute must not be sham. In other words the said dispute must be a bona fide dispute. It is equally settled that the investigation as to the genuinity or correctness of the said 'dispute' is fact specific.

4. Let me now consider whether the Learned Trial Judge in the facts and circumstances of the present case is justified in holding that the 'dispute' raised by the defendant in the application under Section 7(2) of the said Act regarding the existence of a relationship of landlord-tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant is a sham dispute.

5. The issue involved in the present revisional application demands consideration of some averments of the plaint of the suit, relevant to the present context. The plaintiffs in the plaint have claimed that they are the joint owners of the property comprised in holding No. 244, G.T. Road Police Station. Bally, Dist. Howrah (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises' in short) and the defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of one shop room of the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 60/- payable according to English calendar month. The rent was initially realised by one Raghunath Prasad Boobna, a receiver appointed in Money Execution Case No. 23 of 1961 but now he has been discharged by the learned Civil Judge, Second Court, Howrah. The defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent on and from January, 1989 and failed and neglected to pay the rent inspite of repeated demand and requests. The said rate of rent of the suit shop room by operation of the provision of Section 17(4A) of the said Act enhanced to Rs. 300/- per month. The said monthly rent of the defendant, according to the plaintiffs should have been Rs. 360/-. In addition to that the defendant was also under legal obligation to pay monthly share of the tax being occupier's share which comes to the tune of Rs. 37/- per month and maintenance @ 10% of the rent which comes to Rs. 36/- per month. Thus, the defendant was under legal obligation to pay Rs. 433/- per month by way of rent, monthly taxes and maintenance.

6. The defendant in the application under Section 7(2) of the said Act has claimed that the rate of rent of the suit shop room is Rs. 60/- per month. The defendant by the said application denied the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit premises and raised a dispute that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between it and the plaintiffs. The defendant in the said application sated, inter-alia, that it has never paid rent to the plaintiffs. Initially the defendant had paid rent to Kamaladevi Chamaria and subsequently paid the said rent till the month of December, 1