USHA AGARWAL @ USHA GOYAL Vs. KAILASH PROSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A judgment of affirmation was challenged by way of the present second appeal. A suit for eviction on the ground of default of payment of rent was filed by the respondents against the appellants. In the previous suit for eviction between the parties, the appellants were found to be defaulters in payment of rent and were afforded the protection against eviction under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The appellants claimed that, they were not defaulters for the second time, since they deposited rent for the period of alleged default in the previous suit between the same parties. The Trial Court held that, the deposits made in the previous disposed of suit were not valid. The appellants were found to be a defaulter of payment of rent for a period of four months within a period of 12 months and not being entitled to protection against eviction. The suit was decreed against the appellants. The appellants were directed to vacate the suit premises. On appeal, the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld which gave rise to the second appeal.

(2.) BY an order dated November 24, 2003 the second appeal was admitted. The second appeal was directed to be heard on the following substantial question of law: ­

(3.) MR . Kartick Chandra Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the respondents contended that, Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was clear. Under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 a deposit was permitted only under the circumstances specified. Those conditions were not satisfied in this case. Reliance was placed on All India Reporter 1969 Calcutta page 104 (Manickchand Durgaprosad and Bros. v. Balukidas Baheti) in support of such contention.