FIROZ KHAN ALIAS MD FIROZ Vs. ANSAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is to the order no.98 dated June 19, 2007 and order no.108 dated January 18, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Additional Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.23 of 2003.

(2.) THE plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.371 of 1992 before the learned Munsif, Sixth Court, Alipore against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners praying for a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, habitual default, etc. THE defendants/petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. THEy also filed applications under Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and those petitions were disposed of accordingly. Owing to financial stringency, the defendants could not make payment of rent from February, 2005 to April, 2007. For that reason, they filed an application on April 25, 2007 praying for condonation of delay in depositing the rents for the said period. By the other petition dated April 25, 2007 filed by the plaintiffs, they sought for striking out defence against the delivery of possession under Section 17(3) of the 1956 Act. Both the applications were disposed of, first by the order dated June 19, 2007 whereas the application of the defendants was rejected and the application of the plaintiff was allowed. By the second order, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the defendant praying for permission to deposit the arrears of rent for the aforesaid period. Being aggrieved, the defendants have come up with this revisional application. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order impugned should be sustained.

(3.) THIS being the position, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay and he has rightly allowed the application under Section 17(3) of the 1956 Act thereby striking out the defence against delivery of possession. The learned Trial Judge has passed a reasoned order in support of his disposal of the applications in the manner indicated above. I hold, that he has rightly disposed of the matter and in doing so he has not exceeded his jurisdiction or that he suffered from want to jurisdiction in doing so. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the application fails to succeed.