HITANGSU KR BISWAS Vs. APARNA CHAKRABARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is absent even today. Mr. Panchanan Pal appearing on behalf of the opposite party has placed the entire thing. The records have been perused. The facts are not in dispute.

(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for eviction. Ultimately the tenant petitioner filed an application under section 17" (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, admitting the rate of rent and the period of default. He asked for. direction from the court to pay the arrears of rent in easy monthly installments. An objection was filed. Ultimately the parties came, to terms and filed a joint statement, which was accepted by the court. . On 11-4-1979, a direction was given according to the provisions of section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act to the defendant to pay the arrear rent with interest amounting to Rs. 5484. 42/- p. in monthly installment of Rs. 140/- per menses from May, 1979. The further direction was that the interest was to be paid within the 7th day of each month. The tenant was unable to carry out that order. Then an application under section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure was filed by the applicant. He pleaded that he was financially distressed. So the rate of the monthly installment should be reduced to Rs. ,30/- per month. The prayer was rejected. That rejection gave rise to the present revisional application at the instance of the tenant defendant.

(3.) MR. Pal appearing on behalf of the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the revisional application. It has been stated that in view of the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code made in 1976 section 11. 5 of the Code of. Civil Procedure has undergone a radical change. In view of such amendment of section 115 of the Code this revisional application does not lie. He has referred to the decision of Ram Narayan vs. Seth Sao reported in A. I. R. 1979 Pat. 174.