NETAI CHANDRA DAS Vs. AMARENDRA NATH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of a tenant Defendant whose application under Section 17A(1) of the West Bengal Premises' Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1969, was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Second Court at Alipore, on the ground that the application was time-barred.

(2.) The suit was instituted on April 5, 1967, the defence against delivery of possession was struck out on September 26, 1969, under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and the instant application was filed on November 17, 1969. The learned Munsif held that this application was not filed within a period of 30 days from the, date of the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1968, and as such held that it was time-barred.

(3.) Without deciding this point I may state at once that an application in this case under Sub-section (1) of Section 17A of the Act of 1969 would not lie for the very simple reason that the defence against delivery of possession was not struck out before the date of the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1968. Sub-section (1) clearly shows that one of the prerequisites to such an application is that the defence against delivery of possession was struck out before the date of the commencement of the Act of 1968. In this case, even if that Act had commenced on August 26, 1967, as is mentioned in Section 1(ii) of that Act or on March 26, 1968, as held by this Court in Md. Yusuf v. Golam Jilani, 73 CalWN 736, still the defence against delivery of possession was struck out long after that Act had commenced. So, the first prerequisite is not complied with. The fact that the Amendment Act of 1969 was published in the Gazette on October 31, 1969, has no bearing on this point. It is for the Legislature to draw the line beyond which the reliefs could not be granted and the Legislature deliberately drew the line at a period before the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1968. In the circumstances this Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs, however, in this Rule.