ARUN KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. KARUNA RAKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against orders Nos. 27 and 28 dated 11th may 1973 passed by Shri B. B. Sarkar, munsif, 3rd Court, Alipore, in Title suit No. 118 of 1972. The opposite party filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner only on the ground of default in payment of rent. On 2. 6. 72 the petitioner filed an application under section 17 (1) and another application under Section 17 (2) of he West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

(2.) IN pursuance of the order passed on the application under Section 171 (1), the petitioner deposited the rent for the month of May 1972, and also rent for subsequent months in the Court. The learned Munsif on 5th of December 1972 disposed of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (2) and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount mentioned in the order within one month from the said date. The petitioner complied with the said order and on 4th of January 1973 he deposited the rent as directed. On 24. 1. 73 the opposite party filed an application for modification of the order passed on 3. 12. 72 praying that the predecease in office of shri B. B. Sarkar while passing the order under Section 17 (2) d not direct the petitioner 10 deposit the interest along with the sum determine ed. The petitioner filed an objection and after hearing the learned munsif shri Sarkar observed that under section 17 (2) the payment of interest at the statutory rate was a mandatory provision and it was a mistake on the part of the Court not to grant inheres that being so, the learned Munsif allowed the application under Section 151 and modified the order passed on 5. 12. 72 and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 51. 20 being interest on the arrears with one month from date.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the afore said order the present application bias been, filed. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sett appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is no provision in section 17 (2) to allow inheres. According to the provisions of Section 17 (2) a tenant can raise a dispute and it is necessary for the Court to determine that dispute provided the tenant complies with the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act. In this case the provisions of Section 17 (1) ware complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner's objection under Section 17 (2) was considered by the Court and ultimately the Court directed the petitioner to deposit an amount within one month from the date of the order. The petitioner complied with the said order within time, Long after that on 24th of January, 1973, the opposite party filed an application for modification of the said order.