SIDDHESWAR PAUL Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference to the Special Division Bench arises out of a Civil Revision case relating to proceedings under Sub-sections ( ) and (3) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The opposite party landlord instituted a suit against the petitioner tenant on 14th September, 1960, for recovery of possession of premises No. 26/1/IC, Rupnarayan Nandan Lane, in P. S. Bhowanipore Dist. 24-Parganas, on the ground in Clause (k) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Writ of Summons in the suit was served upon the tenant on 3oth October, 1960, and the tenant entered appearance in the suit on 4th November, 1960. The tenant deposited with the Rent Controller the rent for the months of November and December, 1960, on 14th December, 1960, and nth January, 1961, respectively. On 17th January, 1961, the tenant filed his written statement. On 27th January, 1961, the landlord filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for striking ont the defence of the tenant. On 10th March, 1961, the tenant filed an application under Section 17 (2) of the Act for determination or adjustment of rent. The learned Munsif before whom the said applications came up for hearing by his order dated the 22nd March, 1961, dismissed the application under Section 17 (2) on the ground that it is time barred but allowed the application under Section 17 (3) and struck off the defence as against delivery of possession for non-compliance with Section 17 (1). The tenant has obtained a Rule against this order. This Rule came up for hearing before a Single Bench of this Court. The learned Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench in view of conflict of decisions on the points involved. Before the Division Bench consisting of Bachawat and Laik, JJ., the order so far as it related to Section 17 (2) was not challenged but only the order so far as it related to Section 17(3) was challenged. The Division Bench felt that the Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin requires reconsideration in view of fundamental differences of opinion on the construction of Section 17 of the Act, and by their order dated 20th November, 1962, referred this Revision Case to me under proviso (iij to Rule 1 of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules for appropriate reference to a Special Division Bench. This Bench has been thereupon constituted for hearing the matter.

(2.) The main question which falls for consideration is whether a deposit in the Rent Controller's Office, of lent becoming payable after a suit or proceeding for ejectment is instituted and the writ of summons is served, can be said to be "payment to the landlord" within the meaning of that expression as used in Section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The provision which is called in aid of the argument in Section 22 (3) of the Act. So it is convenient to set out Section 22 at this stage which is as follows:

(3.) The question is whether Section 22 (3) can be invoked for the purposes of satisfying the requirement of payment to the landlord as contemplated in Section 17 (i).