Judgment:
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.
1. This revisional application is directed against Order No. 70, dated 1st of February, 1993, passed by Sri H. P. Chatterjee, learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 108 of 1989, which was instituted by the opposite party, for eviction of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement for her own use and occupation. In the said suit, the petitioner made an application under Section 17(2) read with Section 17(2A)(a & b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and for determination of the arrear amounts of rent payable by the petitioner. The said application was heard, in terms of an Order of this Court, along with the issue as to relationship between the parties. At the hearing, both the parties adduced evidence, and, by the impugned order, the learned Assistant District Judge found that the parties were related as landlord and tenant and directed deposit of Rs. 55,600/- within a month from the date of the Order.
2. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Assistant District Judge took into consideration the following facts :-
(i) It was known to the tenant from the very beginning that the plaintiff was the owner of the premises in suit though the plaintiff wrote to the tenant identifying her husband as the landlord.
(ii) The defendant was inducted in the suit premises by the plaintiff's husband, who had been realising rent from him on the basis of a contract of tenancy, which initially had been signed by the plaintiff's husband and the defendant but subsequently had also been signed by the plaintiff.
(iii) The allegations made by the defendant about the non-supply of water or non-delivery of the agreed extent of tenancy were found untenable by the learned Assistant District Judge.
3. It is indisputable that the definition of 'landlord' as given in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, Section 2(d) is an inclusive definition which includes not only the owner of the premises but also a person, who for the time being is entitled to receive the rent, either on his own or some other's account. Regarding the second category of landlords, as mentioned above, it is also indisputable that without the permission or authority of the owner, he cannot create a tenancy, which has the effect of transferring a part of the owner's interest in the tenanted property, it being a lease, which connotes a transfer of interest in immovable property (Vide Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act). The instant suit is a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement for the plaintiff's own use and occupation, where, in terms of Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, a decree may be granted to an owner/landlord only. This statutory provision is a pointer to the legislative intent of non-exclusion of owner as landlord, even when another person may satisfy the test of being a landlord as per the extended definition of Section 2(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which definition, again, applies unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. In the instant case, although the husband of the plaintiff can be regarded as landlord, because of the special contract, plaintiff's right as landlord cannot be said to have been lost, particularly, when the plaintiff's husband, in course of his testimony, actually and expressly supported her claim for a decree as landlord and raised no objection to the same. In the present case, therefore, there is no conflict of interests as between the plaintiff and her husband. The user of the term, describing the plaintiff's husband as landlord, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may be taken to be a loose statement, not affecting the legal relationship between the parties. The findings of the learned Trial Judge cannot, therefore, be said to be suffering from any error, far less, any jurisdictional error, but accord with law, justice and equity and fully satisfy the conscience of the Court. In the above view, the impugned order brooks no interference not at any rate in the exercise of our discretion under Section 115 of the code and it should be upheld.
4. In the premises, the revisional application fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The time for payment, in accordance with the order of the learned Trial Judge, after adjustment of the amounts paid in terms of the Order of this Court, is extended by a month from this date.
A.K. Chakraborty, J.
5. I agree.