IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

C.O. 2415 of 2025

Sri Indrajit Chakraborty

VS.

Sri Tapan Paul

With

CO 2227 of 2025

Sri Tapan Paul

Vs.

Sri Indrajit Chakraborty

For the Petitioners : Mr. Partha Pratim Roy

In CO 2415 of 2025 Mr. Ayanabha Raha

For the Opposite Party Mr. Pritam Choudhury

In CO 2227 of 2025

….. advocates

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ivan Roy

In CO 2415 of 2025 ….. advocate

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Debangshu Bandhu

In CO 2415 of 2025 For the petitioner in

CO 2227 of 2025

…… advocate

Heard on : 13.08.2025 Judgment on : 20.08.2025

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The order being no. 46 dated April 22, 2025 passed by the learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division) 4th Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 56 of 2018 is under challenge in these applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. C.O. 2415 of 2025 is at the instance of the

plaintiff and C.O. 2227 of 2025 is at the instance of the defendant.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was disposed of on contest by directing the defendant to deposit the arrear rent together with interest by two easy instalments in compliance with Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and the defendant was directed to deposit current rent within the 15^th of each succeeding month. The adjustment of the adjudicated rate of rent with the renovation cost and salami was left open to be adjudicated at the time of trial.

3. Since both the civil revision applications arise out of the selfsame order, the same were heard analogously and are decided by this common order.

4. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to according to their rank in CO 2227 of 2025.

5. The opposite parties filed a suit for eviction inter alia on the grounds of default and reasonable requirement against the petitioner.

6. The case made out in the plaint in a nutshell is as follows-

The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties namely Sunil Chakraborty inducted the petitioner as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property by virtue of a tenancy agreement dated 01.12.2000. The rate of rent at the inception of the tenancy was Rs. 1,200/- per month payable in advance. In the agreement there was a stipulation regarding enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% of the existing rent after expiry of 5 years. The defendant paid partial rent at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month up to February, 2016 and is a defaulter in payment of full rent since March, 2016.

7. Petitioner entered appearance in the said suit and filed applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (for short the “1997 Act”).

8. In the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act, the petitioner stated that he was inducted sometimes in the month of September, 1999 as a tenant by Sunil Chakraborty and he used to pay rent of Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite parties and the opposite parties used to provide rent receipt of Rs. 500/- per month and tendered rent by hand up to April, 2016. It was further stated therein that the opposite party no. 1 refused to accept rent for the month of May, 2016 and the petitioner sent the rent by Money Order and thereafter, started depositing rent before the Rent Controller from May, 2016 till March, 2018 and prayed for permission to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from April, 2018 onwards month by month.

9. In the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the petitioner has stated that the opposite party no. 1 used to issue rent receipt of Rs. 500/- per month against payment of rent of Rs. 1200/-. The petitioner has disputed the rate of rent as well as the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Petitioner claims to have paid a huge amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- to Sunil Chakraborty as salami and with the consent of the landlord renovated the suit premises at his own cost of