S K MUKHERJEE Vs. SAILA BALA SEIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained by the tenant defendant in a suit for ejectment and is directed against an order of the learned Munsiff of the Third Court, Howrah, rejecting his application under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956. The plaintiffs, who are the opposite parties Nos. 1-5 in this Rule, brought the suit for ejectment on the grounds of default, subletting and reasonable requirement. According to the plaintiffs' case, the tenant defendant No. 1 is a defaulter in payment of rent since November 1968. Admittedly, the defendant No. 1, who is the petitioner in the present Rule, was a tenant in respect of the suit premises under opposite parties Nos. 1-5 at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- payable according to English calendar month. The petitioner also admits that rent was not being paid since November 1968, the reason given by him being that he claimed adjustment for Rs. 364/- which he paid as Municipal taxes on behalf of the plaintiffs and also for a sum of Rs. 492/- which he incurred on account of essential repairs to the suit premises, against the rent payable by him but the landlords refused to adjust those amounts against rent. On the 17th September, 1971, when the application under Section 17 (2) was filed rent for the premises was admittedly in arrears from November 1968, to August 1971, that is, for 34 months. So, the total amount of arrears of rent till the date of the application under Section 17 (2) was Rs. 2,040/-. If from this amount the Municipal taxes of Rs. 364/- and the cost of repairs amounting to Rs. 492/- are deducted, the balance would come to Rupees 1,184/-. Thus this sum of Rs. 1,184/- was admitted by the petitioner to be due from him at the time when he filed his application under Section 17 (2). The learned Munsiff rejected the application under Section 17 (2) on the ground that the defendant No. 1 did not deposit this admitted amount of Rs. 1,184/- along with his application as required by Section 17 (2).

(2.) Mr. Gopal Chandra Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted before me that even though the petitioner did not deposit in Court the admitted amount of Rs. 1,184/-along with his application under Section 17 (2) within the time specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 17, the court has power to extend the time for depositing the admitted amount as provided for in Sub-section (2-A) of Section 17. He has further submitted that although the petitioner has not specifically made any prayer for extension of time to deposit the admitted amount in his application under Section 17 (2), there is an omnibus prayer in that application to the effect that the court may pass such other order or orders as the court deems fit and proper. Mr. Hemendra Chandra Sen, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs opposite parties, on the other hand, contends before me that the point raised by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioner has been concluded by my decision in the case of Sri Sarada Sangha v. Asoke Sengupta, reported in (1972) 76 Cal WN 862. In that case I took the view that an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956, for determination of the rent payable by the tenant should be accompanied by deposit of the amount admitted by him to be due from him, within the time specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 17 and if no such deposit of the admitted amount is made within the time specified in Sub-section (1) the application for determination of the rent would not be maintainable. Mr. Mukherjee does not dispute the correctness of this view. But his contention is that under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 17 the court has power to extend the time for depositing the admitted amount of rent which is required to be deposited under Sub-section (2). This question, however, was not raised nor decided in (1972) 76 Cal WN 862.

(3.) Thus the sole point for my consideration in this Rule is whether the court can extend the time under Section 17 (2-A) for depositing in court the amount admitted by the tenant to be due from him which he is required to deposit under Sub-section (2) along with his application for determination of the rent. This point is not covered by any authority. The decision on this point depends on the construction to be put on Clause (a) of Sub-section (2-A) which is reproduced below:--