D S JAIN Vs. MEGHAMALA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule raises a short question. The petitioner was a lessee of the disputed properties under the opposite parties under a registered deed of lease, dated 31st January, 1953. The lease was for 5 years from 1st February, 1953, to 31st January, 1958. The properties comprised, in short, a furnished and well-equipped Cinema House, known as "ajanta",-the building and structures being described in Schedule A and the furniture and the machines, machineries etc. in Schedule B, the stipulated total rental being Rs. 2,400/- per month, payable to opposite party No. 1 (owner of the building and structures), Rs. 1,000/-, to opposite party No. 2 (owner of the furniture), Rs. 800/- and to opposite party no. 3 (owner of the machines, machineries etc.) Rs. 600/-, with a total rebate of Rs. 150/- apportioned respectively as follows: Rs. 100/-, Rs. 25/- and Rs. 25/ -. Other provisions in the lease are not material for our present purpose.

(2.) IN 1959, the opposite parties instituted the present suit (T. S. No. 72/59 of the 7th Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore) for inter alia ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of expiry of his aforesaid lease with a further allegation that he was a defaulter in payment of rent, which disentitled him to any protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, even if the same would have been otherwise available to him. The defence inter alia was a claim of protection under the above Act.

(3.) IN course of the suit, the opposite parties applied for an order under sec. 17 (3) of the aforementioned West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, striking out the petitioner's written defence against ejectment or recovery of possession, upon the ground of non-compliance, on his (petitioner's) part, with the mandatory provisions of sec. 17 (1) thereof. This application was allowed by the Court below by its order no. 58, dated 2. 8,60. Prior to that, the petitioner's application for the hearing of Issue No. 2, which raised the question of stay of the instant suit until the hearing of the petitioner's previously instituted suit for specific performance of an alleged contract of renewal of the lease had been virtually rejected by the Court below by its order no. 48, dated 7. 6. 60, and his prayer for reconsideration of the same had also been rejected by its order no. 55, dated 13. 7. 60.