KANAILAL DUTTA Vs. KANAILAL PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order striking out the defense under the provisions of sections 17 (1) and 17 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act The ejectment suit was decreed by the Trial Court on the 28th February 1961. There was an appeal by the tenant defendant and the appeal was allowed on the 30th november 1961 and the matter was sent back on remand to the Trial Court. Records were received in the Trial court (after the order of remand) on the 26th January 1962. On 1st February 1962 the tenant applied for permission to deposit the arrears of rent due and the said petition was allowed , and the arrears were deposited in court. Thereafter, the plaintiff landlord filed a petition under section 17 (3) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act on the 19th July 1962 and the said petition was allowed and defense was directed to be struck out and against that order this petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved by the tenant defendant.

(2.) THE Trial Court held that there was no evidence nor assertion that the Trial court or the Appellate Court actually refused to accept such deposit that are compulsory for the defendant under the statute and the plaintiff was bound to go on depositing the rents from month to month strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 17 (1) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act till the disposal of the appeal, mr. Ganguly refers to the definition of the word 'tenant' in the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act of 1956, and says that a tenant does not include a person against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed. Undoubtedly the word 'tenant' includes ex-tenants for certain purposes; but that reference is to a contractual tenancy. The word 'tenant' has been given a special meaning for purposes of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act of 1956. It includes all persons against whom notices for ejectment have been served and the contractual tenancy have been determined; but it does not include persons against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed.

(3.) THIS is the very specific definition of a 'tenant' under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act of 1956. If that is so, it is urged from the date of the decree of the Trial court, the defendant ceased to be a tenant for purposes of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. If he continued in possession, he continued in possession not because of his rights under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act but because the court, in which the matter was pending, was inclined to interfere and grant stay of proceedings for execution. He ceased to be a 'tenant' during the time the appeal was pending in the Court of Appeal below. He could not, therefore. deposit rent under the provisions of section 17 of the" West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act during that time. Hence, it is urged there was no default on the part of the tenant in complying with the provisions of section 17 (1) during that period; he was not then the tenant and, therefore, he was not liable. Therefore, it is urged, there was no question of depositing rent from the date of the decree for ejectment by the Trial Court till the date of reversal of the decree of the Trial Court by the Appellate court i. e. , 30th November 1961. On the 30th November 1961 the judgment of the Court of Appeal below was delivered and the decree of the Trial court ceased to have any effect and the result was that the defendant became a 'tenant' and as soon as he again became a tenant, he became liable to deposit from month to month rent. But before such reversal of the decree for ejectment, there was no relationship of, 'landlord' and 'tenant' between the parties under the provisions of West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, and there was no liability for 'rent'; but, as soon as that decree was reversed the liability under section 17 accrued.