GANGARAM HIMMATMAL MANSUKHARIA Vs. TUSHAR KANTI NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by defendants under Section 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), for extension of time for making the deposit and for payment of arrears by suitable installments.

(2.) On or about November 7, 1984 the plaintiff instituted this suit, inter alia, praying for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the flat being Flat No. 8D Camac Court, 25 Camac Street, Calcutta as well as for arrears of rent and mesne profit. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant failed and neglected to pay rent to the plaintiff since December 1982 and is a defaulter within the meaning of the said Act and by reason thereof the plaintiff has become entitled to take vacant and peaceful possession or to re-enter into the said flat. It is also alleged that the defendant has wrongfully and illegally sub-let and or transferred and/or parted with the possession of the said flat to one Private Limited Company without any consent of the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he is in need of the said flat as the same is reasonably required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation.

(3.) This application has been made by the defendant on March 21, 1985. Admittedly the defendant paid rent upto November, 1982. Accordingly, he is liable to pay or deposit rent or a sum equivalent to the rent as the case may be from December, 1982 till the application was made in March, 1985. It is also alleged by the defendant that he tendered rent for the months of January, February, March, April, May and June, 1984 to the plaintiff by an account payee cheque forwarded under prepaid registered cover of a letter dated June 19, 1984. The plaintiff, it is alleged, however refused to accept the said letter as also the cheque forwarded under cover of the said letter. It is also alleged that prior to that the defendant, on several occasions, duly tendered rent before the landlord under postal money orders but on each of the said occasions the rent was allegedly refused by the plaintiff.