The High Court dismissed a revisional application challenging a Trial Court's rejection of a review petition and its order on a tenancy dispute. The Single Judge held no jurisdictional error occurred as the review grounds were improper.
Revisional application dismissed without costs; interim stay order deemed not in vogue.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
6 27.6.2023 Ct. 236 SB
CO 2510 of 2014
In the Matter of : Dilip Santra
As usual none is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
This revisional application challenges the orders passed by learned Trial Court vide nos. 22 dated 10.8.2012 and 23 dated 26.09.2012 together with order no. 31 dated 6.01.2014. Earlier on 07.6.2023 and subsequently on 15.6.2023 the matter was adjourned.
Upon perusal of record, I find that vide order no. 22 the substituted defendants entered into appearance and 26.9.12 was fixed for hearing of the petition filed under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by the defendant. Learned Trial Court disposed of the application under Section 7(2) filed by the original tenant and in presence of the parties on 26.9.2012. The order was never challenged. On 26.9.2013 an application under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed together with an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Learned Trial Court was pleased to reject the prayer for review by the Order No. 31. This application under Order LXVII Rule 1 was filed by the petitioner to review the order passed under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and it was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court as the grounds taken by the defendants are not commensurate to the provision under Order
2
LXVII Rule 1. Therefore in my view, learned Trial Court did not commit any jurisdictional error vested on it. The impugned order cannot be termed as perversed.
Moreover, the order passed by the learned Trial Court determining the arrears of rent in an application under Section 7(2) has not been challenged.
Under such circumstances, having found no merit in the petition under consideration, I am inclined to dismiss it, however, without costs. Interim order of stay for eight weeks granted on 30.7.2014 cannot be considered to have been in vogue.
Copy of the order be sent down to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of a review application under Order LXVII Rule 1 CPC, filed on grounds not commensurate with the provision, constitutes a jurisdictional error.
Whether the revisional court should intervene in the disposal of a petition filed under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dilip Santra
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
