SHEIKH HOSSAIN Vs. NAUBAHAR BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order striking out the defence of the defendant petitioner under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) A suit has been filed by the plaintiff (alleging that she is the owner by purchase of premises No. 13 Gangadhar Babu Lane Calcutta) for ejectment of the defendant who is in occupation of one ground floor room of the above premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 50/- as a tenant on the ground of default of payment of rent since May 1966 and on the further ground that the room is reasonably required by the plaintiff for building and rebuilding purposes and also for her own use and occupation. The defendant petitioner appeared and since then he is contesting the suit by filing written statement He has also deposited rents for May 1966, October 1966 and July, 1969 within one month from the date of service of summons with an application under Section 17 (1) of the Act, with permission of the Court, together with statutory interest for the arrears.

(3.) On 19-6-70 the plaintiff has filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the Act for striking out the defence of the present petitioner against delivery of pos-session on the allegation that he has not paid any amount whatsoever on account of arrears of rent and also that he has not deposited the current rent. In the written statement one of the objections taken is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the present petitioner which was also repeated in the objection filed by the present petitioner to oppose the application under Section 17 (3) of the Act. The trial Court found that the deposits already made with the permission of the Court were valid deposits but since he has neither deposited arrears of rent after May, 1966 nor has filed any application under Section 17 (2) raising any dispute as to arrears for the said months, although "it may be said that he has deposited, as stated by him in his written statement, all rents upto June, 1969 excepting May, 1966 to the credit of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest named Bilayet Hossain in the office of the Rent Controller," the trial Court refused to give any relief and struck out the written defence. This is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.