RADESHYAM SAHA Vs. RAMANI MOHAN CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is directed against an order dated 7th October 1980 passed by the learned Munsif, Nabadwip in Title Suit No. 55 of 1978 dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 17 (21)and (2a) (a) and (b) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 (hereinafter called the Act

(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party has instituted the suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises on the grounds that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent at Its 45/- per month payable according to English, Calendar month for six months from February to July 1978 and that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. After the summons had been served on the defendant on 15. 8. 78 he appeared and filed an application under Section 17 (1)of the Act on 14. 9. 78 for permission to deposit rent in Court for the period from September 1978 and it was allowed. On the same day the defendant filed another composite application under section 17 (2) and (2a) (a) and (b) of the Act for determination of the amount payable to the plaintiff towards the arrears of rent and permitting the defendant to deposit the amount to be so determined in 12 monthly instalments and/or for passing necessary orders. The defendant contended therein that he was not a defaulter for six months and that the plaintiff had taken Rs. 75/- as advance in June 1972 and December 1977 which amount was to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. The plaintiff opposed the application contending inter alia that it was not maintainable.

(3.) THE learned Munsif has held that the advance of Rs. 75/- in excess of the amount of one month's rent was not legally receivable by the plaintiff in view of Section 5 (b) of the Act and that the. defendant having failed to deposit the amount admitted to be due from him towards the arrears of rent along with his application as required under section 17 (2) of the Act, the application is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. In that view the trial court has dismissed both the prayers under Section 17 (2) and under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the defendant made in his composite application.