KASTURI LAL Vs. RAMKRISHNAC LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for ejectment. The suit was instituted on March 5, 1959, and it is, admittedly, governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The ground, taken under that act, was default in payment of rent. The defaults alleged were for the peri-od August, 1957 to May, 1958.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the de-fendant and it was ultimately dismissed, although the learned trial Judge found, and found rightly on the evidence that the defendant's default in payment of rent had been proved for the period Au-gust 1957 to May 1958, as alleged by the plaintiff. It was thus a case of default for more than 4 months and, if all those defaults could be availed of by the plaintiff, the defendant will have no protection either under Sec. 13 or under sec. 17 of the above Act. The learned trial Judge, however, was of the view that the period of twelve months, mentioned in Sec. 13 (1) (i) of the above act, refers to a period of twelve months, preceding, that is, immediately preceding, the institution of the suit, or, in other words, the instant suit having been instituted on March 5, 1959, it would cover the period, April 5, 1958 to March 4, 1959, and, as, during this period, the relevant defaults out of the above would be only of March to May 1958, it would fall short of the required period of four months under Section 17 of the above Act and, upon that view, the learned trial Judge directed the defendant to deposit the said rents, namely, for March 1958 to May 1958 in court with costs and interest under section 17 (i) of the above Act and, the said deposit having been made, as directed by the court, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(3.) IN our view, the learned trial judge has misinterpreted the words "a period of twelve months", as appearing in Section 13 (1) ( (i) and Section 17 (4)proviso of the above Act, by holding that the said period of twelve months refers to a period of twelve months, immediately preceding the institution of the suit. The statute contains no such limitation and, giving, the words their plain meaning, the "period of twelve months," referred to above would be referable, at any rate, to any period of twelve months between the commencement of the Act and the institution of the suit. We would, accordingly, hold that the relevant period of twelve months for purposes of this cease under Section 13 (1) (i) and section 17 (4) proviso of the above Act, would be any such period between the ceommencement of the Act, namely, march 30, 1956, and the institution of the suit, namely, March 5, 1959, and, as the defendant was guilty of default from August, 1957 to May, 1958, he would be guilty of default in payment of four months' rent within a period of twelve months, as contemplated in the above Section 17 (4) proviso.