RAJIB LOCHAN BANERJEE Vs. ANIL KUMAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the orders of the Munsiff at Uluberia by which he ordered the striking out of the defense of the defendant against the delivery of possession. The plaintiff landlord instituted a suit for ejectment against the defendant. The suit was instituted on the 29th of April, 1959. On May 1, 1959, the defendant deposited with the Rent Controller the rent for the period from Chaitra, 1365 (14th of March, 1959) to Shraban, 1366 B. S. Summons were served on the defendant on the 20th May, 1959 and nothing was deposited in Court till 7th August, 1959, which will be about Shraban, 1366 B. S. The question in this case is whether in spite of such deposit in advance with the Rent Controller the tenant is to be considered a defaulter within the meaning of section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, i. e. , West Bengal Act 12 of 1956 and whether this defense would be struck off.

(2.) IT was the duty of the tenant under Section 17 (1) of the Act to deposit all arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of summons i. e. within 20th June, 1959, in Court. Rent for the month of Chaitra would be due by 15th Baisakh and, if that was deposited on May 1, 1959, no complaint can be made. Rent for Baisakh would be due on 15th Jaistha i. e. , 1st June, after the service of summons on 20th May and should have been deposited in Court. Rent for Jaistha and Ashar were not deposited in Court. Hence this application for striking out of the defense.

(3.) IT is not disputed that rents up to Shraban 1366 B. S. were deposited in advance with the Rent Controller and rents for the subsequent period are still being deposited in Court. Therefore, if the deposit before the Rent Controller was valid, there would be no default. The learned Munsiff referred to a decision of this High Court reported in (1) 62 Calcutta Weekly Notes page 555 and held that the deposit in advance with the Rent Controller is of no assistance to the tenant and accepting that view, he made the aforesaid orders, making an observation "however harsh it may be, there is no escape from this legal position" ; the question evidently is: is this the correct legal position?