IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the tenant to claim adjustment of advance rent against the monthly rent under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the application of statutory restrictions under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This Civil Order is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Barrackpore in Ejectment Suit no. 100 of 2009.

2. By the impugned order, the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (for short “the 1997 Act”) was allowed by directing the defendant/petitioner herein to deposit the arrear rent within the time limit specified in the said order.

3. The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties herein instituted the suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of default. After entering appearance in the said suit the defendant/ petitioner herein filed an application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act raising various disputes. One of the disputes raised in the said application was that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant, between the plaintiff and the defendant. The dispute as to the rate of rent was also raised by the defendant/petitioner. The petitioner also raised a dispute with regard to quantum of arrear rent in the said application. The defendant/tenant claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- only in advance towards the rent in respect of the sweet meat shop under the name and style of “Gouri Sweets” and further paid a sum of Rs. 90000/- only in advance towards the rent in respect of tenancy of the workshop namely “D.D. Enamels” subject to adjustment against the monthly rent from the month of January, 1998.

4. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff’s/opposite parties contested the said application by filing a written objection specifically denying that the defendant tenant have made an advance of Rs. 1,21,000/- against the tenancy of the sweet meat shop and Rs. 90,000/- only against the tenancy of the workshop D.D. Enamels.

5. The learned Trial Judge held that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff at a consolidated rate of rent of Rs. 1400/-. With regard to the claim of adjustment of Rs. 90000/-, the learned Trial Judge noted the evidence of the PW-1 wherein he stated that he does not have any money receipt in that respect containing the signature of Parul Rani Ghosh. With regard to the adjustment of the amount of Rs. 1,21,000/-, the learned Trial Judge observed that the document being exhibit 14 is in respect of “Ashirbad Stores” whose proprietor is Gouri Bala Das and the defendant in his cross examination made an admission that there was no signature of the plaintiff in that document and the said document nowhere states that the advance was taken by Moloy Kanti Ghosh for Parul Rani Ghosh. On the basis of such observations, the learned Trial Judge discarded Exhibit 14 while considering the claim for adjustment.

6. Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing in support of this Civil Order contended that the impugned order suffers from perversity for non-consideration of Exhibit-8. He further contended that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the effect of the document being Exhibit 14 in its true perspective. He contended that the defendant tenant having incurred an amount for improvement of the tenancy and having paid a substantial amount in advance towards rent pursuant to an agreement, by and between the landlord and tenant that such sum is to be adjusted against the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord, such a dispute falls within the scope of Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Makhan Lal Bose vs. Charupama Debi and ors. reported at AIR 1984 (Cal) 44.

7. Per contra, Mr. Halder, learned Advocate opposing this civil order contended that Exhibit 14 does not relate to the tenancy which is the subject matter of the instant suit for eviction. He further contended that Section 14(1)(b) of the 1997 Act imposes a statutory bar on the landlord from receiving any amount exceedin