Monoranjan Mullick, J.@mdashThis revision petition u/s 115 C.P.C. is directed against Order No.46 dated 27.4.83 passed by Smt. B. Roy,
Munsiff, 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.300 of 1978 in disposing of the O.P. defendant''s application u/s 17(2 )(2A) of the West Bengal
Premises Tenancy Act along with issue no. 6 in favour of the O.P. defendant holding that there is no relationship, of landlord and tenant between
the petitioner and the opposite party. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, who is plaintiff in the original title suit, has moved this court in revision and
contained the present Rule. It is contended that the finding of the learned Munsif is perverse as she has acted illegally and with mater 1 irregularity
in holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the present petitioner and the opposite party that the learned Munsif has
acted illegally and erred in not making proper meaning of definition of ""landlord"" given in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party.
3. Mr. Dutt, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Munsif has committed a great illegality in holding that there was no
relationship of landlord and tenant and also by observing that the plaintiff may be the owner but not the landlord.
4. I have carefully perused the impugned order passed by the learned Munsif. The learned Munsif has observed that according to the definition of
section 2(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act ""landlord"" includes any person who, for the time being, is entitled to receive rent or but for
a special contract would be entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether or not on his own account and that the rent receipts show that
Shibdas Dey realised the rent and not the plaintiff and in view of the said evidence, the present petitioner is not entitled to claim rent from the
defendant and consequently, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the present plaintiff and the defendant.
5. I am afraid that the learned Munsif has failed to appreciate the true legal implication of the definition of landlord'' given in section 2(d) of the
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The definition of landlord in the Act is on inclusive definition. It not only includes the owner of the property
who is entitled to receive the rent but also any other person who collects the rent on behalf of the owner either as rent collector or as the agent.
The expression ""any person who is entitled to receive rent"" u/s 2(d) of the Act, clearly includes the owner of the property, because the owner of
the property is entitled to realist rent from the tenant of the premises being the owner. In the present case there is also clear averment of the
petitioner that she is not only the owner of the premises in suit, but also inducted the defendant in the suit premises. Only on the basis of some rent
receipts which showed that Shibdas Dey, who is admittedly the son of the present petitioner, granted receipt to the defendant by signing at the
back of those receipts, the learned Munsif appears to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to receive rent. In my view, she has committed illegality
in jumping to that conclusion. It was necessary for her to come to a clear finding as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises or
not. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that her son Shibdas Dey had been realizing rent not only from the present
opposite party, but also, from the other tenants of the petitioner as her agent and on the basis of a power of attorney and the said power of
attorney was produced in Court.
6. I find from the record that a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Munsif sometime in April 19 83 and before passing
of the impugned order for calling for the records of the Title Suit No.99 of 1978 in which all the documents in respect of the premises in suit were
filed and they were necessary for proper determination of the question which was penning for decision before the learned Munsif, but I find that the
plaintiff''s documents of title and other documents have not been taken on evidence before deciding the vital issue no. 6 regarding relationship and
also the O.P.'' s petition disputing relationship u/s 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. There is no clear finding of the
learned Munsif as to whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property or not. If the plaintiff be found to be the owner of the property, then she
squarely comes within the definition of the landlord as given in section 2(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Sultan Singh, J of Delhi
High Court in Miss Jit Kaur v- Sri Mooched 1982 12) All India Rent Control Journal page 12 observes that when the definition of the landlord
given in the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (the definition is in perimeter with the definition under the West Bengal Act) includes a person who is
entitled to receive rent the owner being entitled to receive rent is also landlord. It has, further, been observed that any person receiving rent on
behalf of the owner would also come within the extended definition, but that would not exclude the real owner of the property to be the landlord of
the premises in which somebody is admittedly occupying as tenant. I am in full agreement with the view expressed in the above. Therefore, I am
convinced that the impugned order is clearly illegal and perverse and is liable to be set aside.
7. I, therefore, make the Rule absolute and direct the learned Munsif to dispose of the defendant''s application u/s 17(2) and (2A) of the West
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the Issue No. 6 again in the light of the observations made in this judgment hereinbefore and by taking any
further evidence as may be adduced by the parties before him. The learned Judge shall dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible and
before taking up any other matter. Let the records be sent below as early as possible by the Special Messenger at the cost of the petitioner.
There will be no order as to costs in this Rule.