N.K.MITRA,J. - (1.)THE tenant-petitioner in this Civil Order has challenged the order of the learned Additional Munsif, Ist Court, at Alipore, being No. 103, dated 16th September, 1985, passed in Title Suit No. 10 of 1984 in which the learned Munsif held that the rate of rent was inclusive of the establishment charges and the total amount of rent payable was Rs. 515/- (Rs. 195/- as rent and Rs. 320/- as establishment charges) and held that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent since November, 1978 and he was to pay the entire arrears with interest by 30 consecutive monthly instalments of Rs. 100/- each, apart from making payment of Rs. 24,633/- on or before the time as specified in the said order. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the rent is Rs. 195/- and the establishment charges which were taken by the landlord by separate receipts would not form part of the rent. In support of his contention the learned Advocate refers to two receipts granted on 2nd August, 1978, one for Rs. 195/- as rent for the disputed flat for the month of August, 1978 and the other for Rs. 320 as establishment charges for the said flat for the said month.
(2.)THE learned Advocate also referred to unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Ajoy Paul v. K.C. Chatterjee, C.O. No. 713 of 1983, wherein Anil Kumar Sen and S.N. Sanyal, JJ., held inter alia, that where other charges were agreed to be paid as part of the rent it would be rent as the landlord failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation as to why charges other than the amount of rent was being realised by him by separate receipt and also could not explain what are the establishment charges for which the said amount was being realised, the same could not be termed as part of the rent. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the opposite party relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Parul Banerjee v. Anand Kumar Agarwala, 1979(2) Cal. L.J. 207, wherein Murari Mohan Dutt and Ram Krishna Sharma, JJ., held inter alia, that the term 'rent' is comprehensive enough to include payment of the agreed amount by the tenant to pay to his landlord for use and occupation not only of the building and its appurtenances but also for the electric installations and other amenities agreed to between the parties to be provided by and at the costs of the landlord.
Having heard the learned Advocate for the parties and going through the impugned order and also the affidavits and the decisions referred to above, in my view, the decision in 1979(2) Cal. L.J. 297 is quite distinguishable because the landlord in the present case has failed to explain why the establishment charges of Rs. 320/- was taken by granting separate receipt and why in the receipt granted for realisation of rent of Rs. 195/- only was described as rent for the disputed premises. It was stated that the said amount was being realised exclusively as rent. The receipt granted for realisation of the establishment charges also reveals that the said receipt was being given for realisation of the said charges exclusively. Moreover, the landlord has also not explained in the present case on what account the said amount of Rs. 320/- was being realised as establishment charges i.e., to say what were the amenities being given by the landlord to the tenant for his use and occupation of the disputed flat. The unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Paul (supra), in my view applies in full force to the facts and circumstances of the present case and it cannot be said that the rent of the disputed flat includes the establishment charges. The impugned order is therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Munsif for re-hearing of Section 17(2) application made by the tenant-petitioner under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, afresh keeping in mind the observations made above. The learned Munsif is to dispose of the said application and also the application under Section 17(2A) made by the tenant-petitioner positively within 2 months from the date of communication of this order to him and not to adjourn the said hearing on any ground whatsoever. The parties are directed to co-operate with the learned Munsif in getting the said applications disposed of within the time as mentioned above. The civil order is therefore allowed without any order as to costs. The application under Section of the Limitation Act is also allowed.

(3.)LET this order be communicated to the Court below and the learned Advocates are permitted to take the gist of this order and communicate the same to the Court below and the learned Munsif is directed to act on such communication without waiting for any official communication and without pressing for production of any certified copy of this order. Petition allowed.