CHAMANLAL REWASHANKAR Vs. VASANT JIWRAJ THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is at the instance of the defendants tenants in a suit for. eviction and it is directed against order no. 27 dated December 5, 1980 of the learned Chief Judge of the city Civil Court, Calcutta. By the said order, the learned Chief Judge dismissed the application of the defendants under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allowed the application of the plaintiffs , landlords under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) IN the suit, the plaintiffs have prayed for eviction of the defendants from the suit promises on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs of the suit premises foe their own occupation, subletting of the suit premises by the defendants and violation of the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property act The defendants entered appearance in the suit, and started depositing the monthly rent under section 17 (1) of the Act.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed an application under section 17 (3) of the Act praying for striking out the defence of the defendants against delivery of possession on the ground that the defendants had not paid rent in accordance with the provision of section 17 (1 ). During the pendency of the application under section 17 (3) of the Act, the defendant filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It transpired from the said application of the defendants that rents were deposited in Court in the name of plaintiff no. 1, Vasant Jiwraj Thakkar alone and not in the names of the other plaintiffs, all of whom are the landlords of the defendants, and that was the reason for which the plain tiffs filed the application under section 17 (3) of the Act. It was alleged in the application under section 151 that the omission to mention the names of the other plaintiffs in the Challans had taken place through in advertence of the Advocate's clerk of the defendants. It was contended by the defendants that it was a technical defect, and that the defendants should be permitted to correct the challans by inserting the words "and others" after the name of the plaintiff no. 1. Shri Ganesh Chandra Pal, the clerk of the Advocate of the defendants, has affirmed an affidavit stating, inter alia, that through in advertence, he omitted to mention the names of the plaintiffs in the deposit Challans, and that it was a bona fide mistake on his part.