SUSAMABALA DAS Vs. SUBHAS CHANDRA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 20. 11. 80 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd addl. Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 131 of 1979 has been challenged under the present application for revision. The suit for ejectment being title Suit No, 382 of 1976 was filed on 10. 8. 76. That suit on subsequent transfer has been re-numbered as Title suit no. 131 of 1979. The grounds for ejectment as stated in the plaint were reasonable requirement and nuisance. The defendant opposite party made his appearance on 16,9. 76. On 6. 6. 78 the plaintiff petitioner filed an application under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for striking out the defence of the opposite party against delivery of possession as he has failed to comply with the provisions of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act. Objection to the said application was filed by the tenant opposite party on 9. 6. 78 and thereafter on 19. 8. 78 the tenant opposite party filed a petition under section 17 (1) of the Act read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for acceptance of rent for the month of July, 1976 after condoning the delay. Again on 20. 7. 79 he also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act alleging that he had no laches and or negligence in the matter of payment of rent for the month of july, 1976 and he had no knowledge of such default prior to 6. 6,78, when the plaintiff had come with an application under section 17 (3) of the Act. Herein also he made the prayer to condone the delay in making the deposit of the rent for the month of July, 1976. Both these applications came up for hearing before the learned Munsif 3rd Add ). Court at Alipore who was pleased to reject both the applications , by an order dated 21. 4. 80. Being aggrieved, by the said order the opposite party came up before this Court with an application which after the caveat was numbered as c. O. 2347 of 1980. The said application came up for hearing along with the caveat before Monoj Kumar Mukhferjee, j. who by an order dated 8. 7. 80 was pleased to direct the trial court to rehear the application under section 17 (1) read with section 151 of the Act. It would be better to quote the exact portion of the order which goes as follows:-

(2.) ON remand the said application under section 17 (1) read with section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure came up for hearing before the learned 3rd Add. Court of munsif at Alipore who was pleased to allow the said application on contest with a cost of Rs. 100/- to the plaintiffs by order No. 170 dated 20. 11. 80. While disposing of the application the learned Munsif observed as follows :-

(3.) MR. S. P. Roychowdhury, the learned Advocate for the petitioner points out that the learned Munsif was directed by this court to dispose of the application under section 17 (1) read with section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure on merits on the basis of the materials already on record. But on merits the learned Munsif found that the petitioner was gross negligent but still then the application was allowed for the ends of justice. It is contended by him that the conclusion could not be based on the reasonings and findings of the learned Munsif herself. It is also pointed out by Mr. Roychowdhury that there was no scope in the facts and circumstances of the came to invoke the inherent power of the Court for the alleged ends of justice in allowing the application under section 17 (1) of the Act reference is also made on behalf of the petitioner to a decision of the Allahabad high Court in the case of Janki Sahu Trust vs. Ram Palat reported in AIR 1950 Allahabad. 580. It is held therein that in exercising jurisdiction under its inherent powers the Court is influenced by the justice of the case in favour of the party who invoked its assistance. Where the party has been guilty of laches or has been negligent in prosecuting his remedy a Court of law would be most reluctant to exercise its inherent power in his favour. In short it is contended that the learned Munsif committed an error in exercising its inherent power in favour of the opposite party who according to the learned Munsif herself had been guilty of laches or had been gross negligent in respect of depositing of rent for the month of july, 1976.