MRS GOURI BOSE Vs. SUKUMAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party instituted on 21. 11. 69 a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises which the defendant held as a monthly tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 375 - payable according to English calendar month. The ground for eviction was default in payment of rent since June, 1969. There was also claim for recovery of rent from June to October, 1969. The petitioner entered appearance on 9. 12. 69 and filed a petition for permission to deposit rent for November, 1969. By another petition under section 17 (2)she raised a dispute contending that rs. 250/- was the rent for suit premises while Rs. 125/- was the hire for fans and bath room fittings. A third application was filed on the same date under section 17 (2a) for leave to deposit arrear rent by installments.

(2.) THE learned Munsif by his order dated 11. 3. 70 determined the arrear rent for July and August, 1969, aggregating Rs. 750/- and he directed that the petitioner should deposit the same by monthly installments of Rs. 150/- the first deposit to be made by March, 1970.

(3.) THE deposit was however not made within March, 1970 and on 8. 4. 70 the petitioner filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure whereon Mis. Case No. 18 of 1970 was started. In her application she stated that her karmachari gobinda Chandra Dey used to look" after her case and she was not aware of the order of 11. 3. 70. She had asked him to take a certified copy of the order from the Court but he went to his native village and fell ill and was even ailing at the time. She got the certified copy of the order on 2. 4. 70 from her lawyer's clerk through another person and thereupon came to know of the said order, which in the circumstances could not be complied with. The petitioner while depositing amount of installment for March and april, 1970, applied by the application filed on 8. 4. 70 for review of the order and praying for enlargement of time and acceptance of the deposit. An affidavit in support was also filed by Gobinda chandra Dey. The application was opposed by the opposite party who contended that the application was not maintainable in law, particularly after the expiry of the time limit. The other allegations about the alleged reasons of delay were denied.