DATE OF FILING                    :     13-11-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      09-12-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30-06-2014.

1.         Robin Banerjee,

            son of  Anu Banerjee,

            15/1, Umesh Banerjee Lane, P.O. Howrah,

            P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.

2.         Anu Banerjee,

            son of late N.N. Banerjee,

            15/1, Umesh Banerjee Lane, P.O. Howrah,

             P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

             PIN – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.          Miss Papia Das,

             wife of  Avimunnya Das,

             14/4/1, Umesh Banerjee Lane, P.S .  Shibpur,

             P.O. Howrah, District – Howrah,

             PIN – 711101.

2.         Sri Hiranmoy  Chatterjee ( landlord ),

            son of late Kali  Shankar  Chatterjee,

            15/1, Umesh Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, P.O. Howrah,

District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711101. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by the complainants against the o.ps. for abiding the executed loan agreement made separately by one Shri Rabin Bannerjee ( herein the 1st complainant ) with  Smt. Minati  Chatterjee, since deceased, for Rs. 80,000/- on the dated 19-12-2003 and the complainant no. 2 ( so-called tenant ) for Rs. 4,000/- on the dated 20-02-2008. Both the complainants prayed relief against non refunding the loan amount against executed agreement caused mental tension and harassment. Hence the case.

2.               The o.ps. in their written version contented interalia that the petition no. 1 is not a tenant relating the schedule premises and there is no relationship in between the petitioner no. 1 with  this o.p. no. 1 as landlord and tenant. Moreover, the complainant no. 1 has wrongly been mentioned and / or made a party for harassment the o.p. no. 1. This answering o.ps. also opined that the petitioner no. 2 already filed civil suit before the Howrah Civil  Court relating to the self-same suit property by an application U/S 17(2) of the  W.B.P.T. Act, 1956 for repairing of the tenanted suit premises by the same i.r.o. T.S. 228 of 2009 rejected by the 2^nd Jr.  Civil Judge, Howrah, for which this instant case is liable to be dismissed accordingly and that to the agreement as alleged cannot be acted upon because of the fact that the agreement did not carry any momentary stipulation.

3.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Whether the instant case is maintainable before the  Forum as per provision of  C.P. Act, 1986 ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of the materials on record and after hearing the ld. lawyers of both sides, we are of the view that this is a  case under   West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and that the O.Ps. violated the terms of the agreement complainant ought to have preferred appropriate Forum under appropriate section for claiming refund the loan amount / permission for repairing the tenanted portion. In this instant case so called complainant  made an agreement on the dated 20-02-2008  ( though original party namely Smt. Minati  Chatterjee, died on 01-03-2007 prior to alleged execution of agreement). It is very surprisingly to note tht the loan agreement executed with the petitioner no. 1 namely Shri Rabin Banerjee has no locus standi with this deceased person on 20-02-2008 after her death which needs clarification / unbelievable.   Naturally, the o.ps. cannot be regarded as a service provider nor the loan agreement on the dated 19-12-2003 and 20-02-2008 can be acted upon if it was between Smt. Minati  Chatterjee since deceased and the complainant.

5.               We have already opined that the instant case is purely within ambit of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and as such the instant complaint cannot be entertained by this  Forum. Complainants not being the consumer and the co-sharers not being impleaded.

           We are of the view that the instant complaint must fail and requires to be dismissed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  389 of 2013 ( HDF  389 of 2013 )  be  dismissed  on contest as  against the  o.ps. but in view of the circumstances without costs.  

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.