D. Lavanya Sundari v. Kamal Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/14/2024 D. Lavanya Sundari Vs.
Kamal Kumar Ms. D.Lavanya Sundari .... Petitioner (in person) March 19, 2024 [SR] Item No.1 Heard the petitioner in person and perused the record of this petition.
From the records it appears that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the Other Suit No.67 of 2021 (Shri Kamal Kumar vs. Smt. D. Lavanya Sundari) for eviction of the tenant i.e.
the petitioner/defendant.
In the said suit, order No.10 dated 22.09.2022 was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair on an application of the plaintiff under section 14 (2) of the Andaman and Nicobar Rent Control Regulation, 1964 whereby the application of the plaintiff was allowed and the defendant was directed to pay current rent at the rate of Rs.6500/- per month to the plaintiff within 15th of every succeeding months starting from October, 2022. She submits that in the aforesaid order, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division also noted the submission of the petitioner/defendant that the plaintiff had broken the roof and locked the toilet in the month of September, 2021, disconnected her water connection and electric connection. However, no observation has been made by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2022 for extending the basic facilities attached with tenanted premises while
directing for payment of rent. Therefore, aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner/defendant has filed an appeal No. 01 of 2023 (Smt. D. Lavanya Sundari vs. Shri Kamal Kumar), along with a delay condonation application for condoning the delay for 172 days. The aforesaid delay condonation application and the appeal are stated to be pending.
The petitioner appearing in person, submits that on the one hand a direction has been issued to her by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division for payment of rent @ Rs.6500/- per month but at the same time no observation has been made for restoration of basic facilities attached with the tenanted premises so that the petitioner may utilized the tenanted premises. She submits that the conduct of the plaintiff/respondent is in breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e to live with dignity. She states that she being a lady is suffering a lot due to obstruction being created by the respondent/plaintiff in using of tenanted premises.
She submits that her delay condonation application and appeal may be directed to be decided by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, at Port Blair being "O.A. No. 01 of 2023" which is still pending. Having heard the petitioner in-person and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no useful purpose would be served to keep the petition pending and to issue notice to the respondent/plaintiff and call for the counter affidavit, in view of the order propose to be passed by this Court.
the petitioner/defendant in O.A No. 02 of 2023, expeditiously preferably within 3 weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order and in the event the delay is condoned, the appeal shall be decided on merits within next 6 months, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. ( Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. )