PANNALAL MANNA AND OTHERS Vs. GAYATRI RANI DENRIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order the trial Court struck off the defence under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The defendant admittedly committed default in not depositing arrears as well as current rent. His case was that the plaintiff was not the landlord. This plea vas adjudicated. The Court held that the plaintiff is the owner landlord of the premises. Since the defendant had not deposited rent his defence was struck off.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the defendant applicant submitted that the Court should have framed an issue on his plea and decided it. The authorities which has been cited by him emphasises that the issue should be decided before further proceedings with the suit. That is what the Court has done. It has decided the issue whether the plaintiff is the landlord or not. Nothing turns on the technicality that in so many words "an issue" be framed, before deciding it. The learned Counsel also challenged the finding which is on a question of fact. I am not satisfied that this is vitiated by a jurisdictional error or defect.

(3.) In his objection to the application under section 17 (3) the defendant has stated that if the plaintiff proves that he is the landlord the defendant was ready to pay rents which had fallen due. The Court below should have, in my opinion, given the defendant an opportunity to deposit rent before striking off the defence. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The impugned order striking off the defence is set aside.