DURGA DEVI Vs. REBATI RANJAN CHAKRABARTL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Durga Devi, the appellant in F.A. No. 493 of 1980 had been a monthly tenant under the plaintiff-respondent in respect of four rooms, one bath room and a kitchen on the first floor of Premises No. 41, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road at a rent of Rs. 200/- per month payable according to English calender. N.N. Mansukhani was also a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs-respondent in respect of one room and one bath room on the first floor of the same premises at a rent of Rs. 86/- per month payable according to English calender.

(2.) IT is the common case of both parties that both the aforesaid tenants had committed defaults in payment of rent since June, 1966 and accordingly the plaintiff-respondent had instituted Ejectment Suit Nos. 102 and 103 of 1968 respectively in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for their eviction under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Both the defendant-tenants have deposited all arrears of rent, interest due thereon and had complied with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and accordingly in the said two previous Ejectment Suit Nos. 102 and 103 of 1968 the respective defendant tenants were granted benefits of sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act.

(3.) MR . Bankim Chandra Dutt, learned Advocate for the appellant, has submitted that both the defendants cannot be considered as defaulters since August, 1969 because non-payment of their respective rent since August, 1969 was not deliberate, wilful or intentional. According to Mr. Dutt, the default under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act means deliberate and wilful non-payment. Secondly Mr. Dutt has submitted that Shri Anath Bandhu Aditya being a lawyer, payment by the defendants of the rent for the period in question to said Anath Bandhu Aditya amounted to due discharge of their obligation to pay rent. Mr. Dutt further submitted that the said learned lawyer having misappropriated the money handed over by the defendants, the defendants themselves cannot be treated as defaulters.