PURSHATTAMDAS BHIWANIWALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, on an application under Sections 17 (2) and 17 (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 purchased the suit premises on 27th March, 1974. On 27th March, 1974 the letter of attornment was sent to the defendant opposite party informing the names of the persons who purchased the premises in suit, On 10th April, 1974, it is alleged that the defendant opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the said letter and sought to know who are the actual purchasers from the erstwhile landlord, I do not like to consider any other facts for the purpose of this rule. The notice of ejectment was served on behalf of the 5 persons on 22nd March, 1976. Mr. S, P. Roy, Advocate, on behalf of the defendant acknowledged the receipt of the notice of ejectment on 30th April, 1976 and the suit was instituted on 27th May, 1976. On 12th March, 1976 the defendant appeared and deposited the amount calculated at the rate of rent last paid. It appears that on 15th March, 1976, the defendant deposited rent with the Rent Controller in favour of M/s. P. Bhiwaniwala & others, a Firm, for the month of February, 1976. It also appears that since February, 1976, till December, 1977 the defendant deposited rent in favour of M/s. P. Bhiwaniwala and others, a Firm. Under Section 17 (3) of the Act the application was filed by the petitioners and that the defence against the delivery of possession was struck out whereupon the defendant moved this Court against the order of striking out of defence against delivery of possession under Section 17 (3) of the Act and this Hon'ble Court by order dated 9th March, 1978 made the rule absolute and directed the rehearing at the application under Section 17 (3) of the Act on certain points, Under Section 17 (3) of the Act the application is still pending. In the meantime the defendant opposite party filed an application under Sections 17 (2), (2A) and (2B) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Judge, City Civil Court, held, inter alia, that the deposits were made with the Rent Controller for the period from February 1976 to December 1977 in the name of M/s. P, Bhiwaniwala & others, a Firm, within one month from the date of service of summons were valid deposits. The defendant validly deposited the rent in the Court for the month of October, 1975 to January 1976 with interest under Section 17 (1) of the Act, The question for the decision was whether the deposits made in favour of M/s. P. Bhiwaniwala and others, a Firm, were valid deposits or not. The learned Judge held that the deposits are valid. It is further held that the rent for the month of December 1975 was remitted by postal money order dated 10-1-1976. He sent the cheque for the rent for the month of February 1976 but the landlord refused the cheque, As the landlord refused to accept, the rent was deposited with the Rent Controller from February 1976 to December 1977, The dispute, therefore, was raised under Section 17 (2) of the Act as to the validity of the deposit with the Rent Controller in the name of M/s, P. Bhiwaniwala and others, a Firm. The learned Judge also held that they are all valid deposits, Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order under Section 17 (2) of the Act read with Section 17 (2A), the landlord moved the present application.

(2.) Mr, Saktinath Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioners contended that the deposit made under Section 22 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is invalid as according to Mr. Mukherjee the deposit was made by the tenant wilfully and negligently making the false statement for depositing the rent and the landlord hag not withdrawn the amount deposited. Mr. Mukherjee contended that the rent deposited in the name of M/s. P. Bhiwaniwala and others, a Firm, is wilfully and negligently made by the tenant and as such the deposits are invalid.

(3.) Mr. Bhabra contended that the deposit was made after the proper temper to the landlord and alter the landlord refused to receive the payment, the not was deposited with the Rent Controller.