SUKUMAR SARKAR Vs. SALIL KUMAR CHAKRAVERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revisional application the petitioners, who are plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 542 of 1981 pending before the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Sealdah, have challenged the Order dated December, 20, 1982 passed by the Learned Munsif, rejecting the petitioners' application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners instituted the suit on September 24, 1981 for eviction of the opposite party on the ground that suit premise were reasonably required by the petitioners for own occupation and also for building and re-building, subletting and default. The summons were served upon the opposite party on October 2, 1981. The opposite party appeared on October 30, 1981 and deposited Rs.840/- as arrears of rent from July 1979 to October 1981 and also interest amounting to Rs.80/-. The total deposit thus made was Rs.920/-. The opposite party, thereafter, made certain deposits in Court which will be presently considered. The petitioners filed an application under Section 17(3) of the Act on October 13, 1982. The said application was heard by the learned Munsif and rejected by the Order dated December 20th, 1982. The learned Munsif held that the defendant deposited the rent on 30.10.81 and as such it cannot be held that the defendant has violated any provision of the Act.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the said order in the present Rule.

(3.) Mr. Sarkar, Learned Advocate for the petitioners, has argued that the learned Munsif has failed to exercise jurisdiction and he has completely misdirected himself when he did not take into consideration that not only there was default in making deposit as rent of June 1979 was not included, but also rents on some subsequent occasions were not deposited in compliance with Section 17(1) of the Act. Mr. Sarkar argues that there was earlier suit viz. Title Suit No.112 of 1971. The said suit was disposed of on 6th July, 1979 and the appeal against the same was disposed of on July 3, 1980. Mr. Sarkar thus argues that as the rent for June 1979 was not before the disposal of the earlier suit on July 6, 1979, the said rent was due and disposal of the earlier suit on July 6, 1979, the said rent was due and it should have been deposited within one month of service of the writ of summons upon the opposite party. The next contention of Mr. Sarkar is that the record shows that the opposite party deposited two months' rent at a time on some occasions and the said deposit is not in accordance with the provisions contained in the latter part of Section 17(1) of the Act. This application under Section 17(3) should thus have been allowed.