SIKHARANI DEBI Vs. NIBARAN KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This Rule relates to an order. dated 18. 11. 1970 passed by the Fourth Court of the munsif at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 601 of 1967 rejecting an application under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, hereinafter referred, to as the Act, filed by the petitioners, Sikha Rani Debi and rathindra Mohan Goswami, the plaintiffs against their tenant, Nibaran Kumar das, the opposite party defendant.

(2.) THE title suit was filed in the court of the Munsif for evicting the defendant-tenant from the suit premises and for mesne profits on several grounds including default in payment of monthly rents. After appearance in the suit, the opposite party filed a petition under sec. 17 (2) of the Act for determination of the dispute relating to the alleged default in payment of monthly rents. The court by its order dated 15. 4. 1968 directed the opposite party to pay or deposit a sum of rs. 1974. 00 with due interest thereon under the Act within a month with liberty to him to pray for extension of time for payment of the amount at proper time. Thereafter the opposite party deposited rs. 500-00 and within a month from the date of the order passed on 15. 4. 1968, prayed for extension of time for the deposit of the balance money. Time was granted up to 10. 6. 1968. Subsequently, from time to time, the opposite party made part payment and before the expiry of the extended time granted by the Court, he again prayed for extension of time and the court, after due consideration allowed the prayer. In this way, the opposite party deposited in all Rs. 1927. 00 by 6. 1. 1969 within the time expended by Court. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 47/-, the rent of a particular month included in the total sum of rs. 1974. 00 had already been deposited by the opposite party with the Rent: controller and the same was withdrawn by the landlords. Therefore there was no arrear of rent due to be paid by the opposite party except the interest payable on the arrears calculated by the learned Munsif. On 6. 1. 1969, the opposite party prayed for recording the payment of the amount as deposited, on 5. 7. 1969 the learned Munsif directed the opposite party to deposit Rs. 16. 4. 50 paise as interest on the sum of Rs. 1974. 00 within a month and he complied with the order. Ultimately, the application under Sec. 17 (3) of the Act was heard and rejected on the ground that the opposite party had complied with the order passed under Sec. 17 (2) and that he had been depositing the amount at the rate of monthly rent every month. Against this order the petitioners have come up with the instant revisional application.

(3.) THE first point urged by Mr. Ganguly, the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction under Sec. 17 (2a)of the Act to extend time for payment or deposit of the due amount more than once after a month from the determination of the amount under Sec. 17 (2 ). The Court below after fixing the amount under Sec. 17 (2) directed the opposite party to pay or deposit the amount within one month from 15. 41969, but on the prayer of the opposite party made within time, further time was allowed till 10. 6. 1963 for making the deposit. The argument of Mr. Ganguly is that Sub-section (2a) read with sub-sec. (2b) of Sec. 17 does not allow any further prayer for extension of time for deposit and as such in the present case, several extension of time granted by the court below were without jurisdiction. The part-deposits made on different dates after time-to-time extensions of time amounting to the total sum due for arrears of rent were bad. The defence of the opposite party, therefore, was liable to be struck off. For the purpose of the present case, i quote below the relevant portions of sub sees. (2a) and (2b) of Sec. 17 of the Act: