BHARAT THAKKAR Vs. SURJYA KANTA MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the judgment and order dated October 26, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal 31 of 2004 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated December 5, 2003 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Misc. Case No.19 of 2001.

(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiffs / opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.55 of 2000 for recovery of possession, damage and mesne profits against the petitioner. In that suit, the defendant / petitioner herein entered an appearance and filed two applications under Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and he started depositing monthly rent in the Court under challans. THE learned Advocate for the defendant / petitioner took steps in the Court. He filed applications praying for time to file written statement on September 7, 2000 and November 9, 2000 and the Court fixed for written statement then on December 11, 2000. THEreafter, the defendant did not take any step and as such, the Court fixed next date on February 8, 2001 for ex parte hearing. Ultimately, the suit was heard ex parte on September 16, 2001 and the same was decreed directing the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises within two months. THE petitioner did not take any step.

(3.) NOW, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the defendant / petitioner herein has stated before the learned Trial Judge that the learned Lawyer for the petitioner would prepare the written statement and would file the same after two years and he assured the petitioner not to be worried. Such statement of the petitioner clearly indicates that the defendant was going to take dilatory tactics to avoid disposal of the said suit.