Disposed¶24

Jyoti Tandon v. Asha Bansal and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Sept 2024CO/1135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: C.O. 1135 of 2024; Calcutta High Court Civil Revisional Jurisdiction; Article 227 Constitution of India; Sections 7(1) & 7(2) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997; deposit of admitted arrear rent; prescribed period of limitation; date of service of summons; registered post; acknowledgement due card; Court bailiff service; Ejectment Suit No. 55 of 2022; City Civil Court 12th Bench Calcutta; Jyoti Tandon v. Asha Bansal & Ors.; order set aside; fresh consideration; Biswajit Basu, J.; disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Order impugned (dismissal of the Sections 7(1) & 7(2) application, dated March 05, 2024) set aside; learned Trial Judge requested to reconsider and decide the application afresh in accordance with law; C.O. 1135 of 2024 disposed of without any order as to costs. ¶24

Jyoti Tandon Vs Asha Bansal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the order impugned dismissing the defendant's application under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for failure to deposit admitted arrear rent within limitation could stand where the date of service of summons was heavily disputed and the findings thereon were unclear (with silence on service by Court bailiff).

¶18

Court's answer

Since the date of service of summons upon the defendant is crucial to deciding an application under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1997, the findings in that regard must be clear; as the order impugned lacks such clarity, it is set aside.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The application under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the Act of 1997 requires a fresh consideration; the learned Trial Judge is requested to decide it afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made herein.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court, Civil Revisional Jurisdiction (C.O. 1135 of 2024, Biswajit Basu, J., 05.09.2024): The defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 55 of 2022 (pending before the Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta) challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution the Trial Judge's order dated March 05, 2024 dismissing her application under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for failure to deposit admitted arrear rent within the prescribed period, on the footing that summons was served by registered post on March 24, 2023 and the application was moved beyond one month thereof. Registered-post service was heavily disputed (no acknowledgement due card on record) and the impugned order was silent on service by Court bailiff. Holding the date of service crucial and the findings unclear, this Court set aside the impugned order and directed fresh adjudication of the Sections 7(1) & 7(2) application in accordance with law; disposed of without costs.

¶1

05.09.2024 (D/L-10) Ct.-19 (Susanta)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶3

C.O. 1135 of 2024

¶4

Jyoti Tandon -Vs-

¶5

Asha Bansal & Ors.

Mr. Rachit Lakhmani,

Mr. Shubham Gupta,

Mr. Raunak Shaw,

… For the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Meghnad Datta,

¶11

Mr. Savita Mukherjee Roychowdhury, Mr. Anirban Saha Roy

¶12

Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty,

¶13

…. For the Opposite Parties.

¶14

The defendant in a suit for eviction being Ejectment Suit No. 55 of 2022 is the petitioner of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the said suit is pending before the learned Judge 12^th Bench City Civil Court at Calcutta.

¶15

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned dated March 05, 2024 has dismissed an application under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act of 1997” in short) for the failure of the defendant to deposit the admitted arrear rent in terms of the provision of Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶16

¶17

The learned Trial Judge has found that the service of summons by registered post was effected upon the defendant on March 24, 2023 but the application under Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 was filed beyond one month from the date of such service, therefore, the defendant is not entitled to deposit admitted arrear rent and the current rent under the said provision of the said Act of 1997.

¶18

The service of summons by registered post was heavily disputed by the defendant, the order impugned is silent about the service of summons by Court bailiff.

¶19

Mr. Lakhmani learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the finding of the learned Trial Judge that the summons by the registered post was served upon the defendant on March 24, 2023 is erroneous since there is no acknowledgement due card on the record.

¶20

The date of service of summons upon the defendant being crucial to decide an application under Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 the findings in this regard must be clear but the order impugned lacks such clarity, therefore, it is set aside.

¶21

The application under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 requires a fresh consideration, the learned Trial Judge is requested

¶22

¶23

to decide it afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view with the observations made hereinabove.

¶24

C.O. 1135 of 2024 is disposed of with the above terms without any order as to costs.

¶25

Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶26

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶27