A tenant against whom an eviction suit is filed under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, is entitled to raise disputes under Section 7(2) of the said Act, and the court is obligated to adjudicate such disputes before passing an order for eviction.

JUDGMENT

Partha Sarathi Sen, J. - In the instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Order dated 11.01.2019 as passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Sealdah, South-24-Parganas in Ejectment Suit No.80/2013 has been assailed. By the impugned order learned trial court in a proceeding under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act') as filed by the plaintiffs rejected the petition under Section 7(2) of the said Act as filed by the defendant on contest.

2. The defendant felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

3. In support of the instant revisional application Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the revisionist/tenant/defendant at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the plaint as filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties under Section 6 of the said Act. It is submitted that since in the said plaint it has been averred by the plaintiffs that the present revisionist was a monthly tenant under them at a monthly rent of Rs.60/- payable according to English Calendar month and since it has been further averred that such tenancy of the present defendant/revisionist has been determined by a notice to quit under Section 6(4) of the said Act, there cannot be any doubt that the present landlords/opposite parties had accepted the present revisionist/tenant as their monthly tenant within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the said Act. It is further argued that since the said suit for eviction under the said Act was filed on the ground of default i.e. for violation of Section 6(1)(b) of the said Act, the present revisionist/tenant after her appearance in the said suit rightly filed a petition under Section 7(2) of the said Act wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant , the extent of tenancy , rate of rent and the period of default have been disputed which ought to have been adjudicated by the learned trial court while passing the impugned order. Drawing attention to the certified copy of the impugned order it is argued by Mr. Roy, that learned trial court while passing the impugned order instead of adjudicating such disputes as raised by the defendant/revisionist wrongly held that the present defendant/revisionist has lost his protection to continue the possession of the suit property as a tenant in view of Section 2(g) of the said Act and thus wrongly dismissed the said application under Section 7(2) of the said Act. He further submits that the reported decision of Sushil Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs. Pilani Properties Ltd. As reported in 2018(3)WBLR 295: 2018 (1) CHN 396 have wrongly been interpreted by the learned trial court while passing the impugned order.

4. Mr. Roy thus requests this Court to allow the instant revisional application by setting aside the impugned order.

5. In course of his submission Mr. Sarkar, learned advocate for the opposite parties/plaintiffs however contended that since in her petition under Section 7(2) of the said Act the present defendant/revisionist has clearly disclosed that in respect of the suit property one Md. Shafi (father-in-law of the revisionist /defendant) was the recorded tenant and after his death the son of the original tenant i.e. Asgar Ali (husband of the defendant/revisionist) became the tenant of the suit property and after his death the defendant and the other legal heirs of Asgar Ali had paid the rent of the suit property to the plaintiffs but no rent bill was issued, in view of provision of Section 2(g) of the said Act and in view of the proposition of law as enunciated in the reported decision of Sushil Kumar Jain(supra), the present defendant cannot come within the purview of the definition 'tenant' under Section 2(g) of the said Act and thus learned trial court is very much justified in not entertaining the said application under Section 7(2) of the said Act as filed by the defendant/revisionist herein. It is thus submitted that it is a fit case f