RAM SARAN MISRA Vs. HARINARAYAN DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party to this Rule has instituted a suit against the present Petitioner in the Second Court of the Munsif for eviction from a premises which the Petitioner had been occupying as a monthly tenant. The case of the Plaintiff opposite party is that the Defendant Petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent since November 1965 and that he was not entitled to any protection under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. On October 3, 1966, the summons of the said suit was served upon the Defendant Petitioner. Thereafter, he had entered appearance in the said ejectment suit. But he did not deposit or pay within one month from the date of the service of the writ of summons on him an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period which he might have made default. He also did not within the time specified in Sub -section (2) of Sec. 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act make any application to the trial Court for determination of the rent payable.

(2.) On August 26, 1967, the West Bengal Ordinance VI of 1967 was published in the Official Gazette. By the said Ordinance Sub -sections (2A) and (2B) were inserted in Sec. 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It is unnecessary for our present purpose to refer to other amendments to the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which was effected by the said Ordinance VI of 1967. Subsequently, West Bengal Act IV of 1968 was enacted which also contained the said amended provisions of Sec. 17(2A) and Sec. 17(2B). It may be noted that the West Bengal Legislature, has re -enacted the said West Bengal; IV of 1968 with modifications as the West Bengal Act XXX of 1969.

(3.) On November 4, 1967, the Petitioner had filed an application in the trial Court purported to be under Sec. 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act read with Sub -sections (2A) inserted by the West Bengal Ordinance VI of 1967. The Petitioner stated that he had defaulted in payment of rent from January 1967, and he now wanted to pay the said arrears of rent by installments. He, accordingly, prayed that necessary orders be passed for payment of the arrears by installments as provided under the aforesaid Ordinance. In my opinion, the learned Munsif has rightly rejected the said application as not maintainable. The Sub -sections (2A) confers a power upon the Court to make an order to extend the time for deposit or payment of the amount referred to in Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Sec. 17 and also to permit the Defendant tenant to pay in instalment the sum which is required to be deposited or paid under said Sub -sections (1). But Sub -section (2B) of Sec. 17 clearly lays down that no such application for extension of time to deposit or pay or permission to pay instalment under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub -section (2A) shall be entertained unless the same is made before the expiry of the time specified therefore in Sub -section (1) or Sub -section (2) as the case might be.