ARUN KUMAR BISWAS Vs. D N MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application at the instance of the tenant defendant is directed against an order dated May 16, 1984 passed in Title Suit No. 59 of 1975, now pending in the court of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore.

(2.) The said suit was instituted by the opposite party (plaintiff) for eviction of the defendant under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on the ground that the defendant/petitioner was a habitual defaulter in the payment of rent. Facts leading to the impugned order as appearing from the petition itself may be briefly stated thus:

(3.) The defendant entered appearance in the suit without the writ of summons being served upon him and filed an application under section 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The petition was rejected by an order dated April 6, 1976 upon a finding that the summons was duly served under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the application of the defendant-petitioner was barred by limitation. The petitioner moved this court in revision and the court adjourned the matter in order to enable the petitioner to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the court below. The defendant-petitioner filed such an application on July 6, 1976. The revisional application thereafter was allowed to be withdrawn. The defendant's petition under Section 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was however, rejected by the learned Munsif by his order dated May 23, 1978. Being dissatisfied with the order the petitioner again moved this court and obtained a Rule being C. R. 2677 of 1978. The Rule was discharged on January 9, 1981. The plaintiff-opposite party filed an application on July 6, 1976 under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for stricking out the defense against delivery of possession. The application was opposed by the defendant-petitioner, but was allowed by the learned Munsif by an order dated July 27, 1981. Being dissatisfied with the order the defendant petitioner again moved this court and obtained a Rule which was ultimately discharged on January 27, 1983.