CHANDRA KALA JALAN Vs. GOVIND DEOJI TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is directed against the order No. 25 dated 13.07.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judge, SCC Court at Calcutta in ejectment suit No. 191 of 2006 whereby learned Trial Court rejected the application dated 11.12.2008 filed by the substituted defendant No. 1(a) and 1(b) on the ground stated in the order.

(2.) HEARD learned Lawyer for the both side. It appears that plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for ejectment No. 191 of 2006 against Ramavatar Jalan, Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner for eviction on the ground stated in the plaint. Said Ramavatar Jalan died intestate on 17.10.2007. after the demise of Ramavatar during the pendency of the suit his legal heir was substituted as defendant No. 1(a) and 1(b) and filed written statement after supplying copy to the other side. Thereafter substituted defendant filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act filed by the substituted defendant No. 1(a) and 1(b) praying for passing an order to determine as to whether they have defaulted in payment of rent and after such ejectment to permit them to deposit the arrear rent, if any, by monthly installment on the ground stated therein. At the time of hearing learned lawyer on behalf of the plaintiff submitted before this Court that the earlier instant application was filed under Section 7(2) of the Act and same has already been disposed of with certain findings. It is further pointed out by the learned lawyer for the plaintiff that said defendant has failed to comply the order so plaintiff has taken appropriate step and on hearing the learned Court below has struck off the defence against the delivery of possession. Thereafter the original tenant died and present defendant were substituted.

(3.) NOW both side has relied upon several decisions. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has relied upon his decision reported in 78 CWN 208, 2002 SAR 446, AIR 1987 SC 1010 and 2004 (2) CLJ 109. I have perused all the decisions carefully and in my humble opinion those reported decisions are not applicable in the instant suit. After careful scrutiny of the Act it appears that there cannot be any successive application for extension of time for the purpose of making payment of arrears of rent or installment. Moreover, no such application can be entertained by the Court if made beyond the period of one month. In the instant case admittedly original defendant filed necessary application within the prescribed period of time and same was disposed of accordingly. No revisional application was preferred against the order passed in respect of that application as the said application has already been disposed of. in my humble opinion no further application on the self same issue can be entertained again and again which in my opinion the whole purpose of the act would be frustrated. Moreover, it is needless to mention that the substituted defendant steps into show of the original defendant and as a result them must abide by the decision of the suit. So the present application filed by the defendant is not maintainable.