ARUN KUMAR GHOSH Vs. ASHUTOSH CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the Title Suit No. 455 of 1978 Munsif, 3rd Court, Sealdah subsequently numbered as Title Suit No. 152 of 1982 of Munsif, Additional Court, Sealdah where the suit was subsequently transferred. This suit is a suit for ejectment of a premises tenant. The plaintiffs have filed this suit on 1.7.1978 on the grounds that the defendant failed to pay rent from April, 1976 and that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises comprising one bed room and one kitchen, one store and a privy. The defendant was a tenant at a rent of Rs. 50/- per month payable according to English calendar month in respect of the suit premises.

(2.) Of the two grounds the plaintiff did not press the ground of reasonable requirement and the suit was decreed only on the ground of default.

(3.) The decree on the ground of default was passed not because the defendant did not deposit the amount of arrear he was directed to deposit by the Order No. 15 dated 30.1.81, but because there was delay in depositing the amount for one month namely, March, 1981 by one day that is, the amount due for March, 1981, was deposited by the defendant on 16.4.81 instead of 15.4.81. By the Order No. 15 dated 30.1.81 the defendant was directed to pay at the rate of Rs. 105/- per month to liquidate the arrear amount of Rs. 3474/- due for the period from April, 1976 to January, 1981 together with interest thereon. The defendant in compliance with that order began depositing the amount of Rs. 105/- together with the rent of Rs. 50 per month. Thus, although the defendant cleared off the entire amount of arrear together with interest he was denied the defendant under the provision of Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act only on the ground that the amount for the month of March, 1981 was deposited on 16.4.81 instead of 15.4.81 and the plaintiff was granted a decree for eviction against him on the ground of default. The plaintiff withdrew the amounts deposited by him including that for the month of March, 1981, after receipt of the challans with regard to the deposits given to the plaintiffs. Before the hearing of the suit no objection was raised at any time to the effect that the deposit for the month of March, 1981 was invalid. Only at the time of hearing of the suit on 20.8.84 the plaintiff P.W. 1 stated in his evidence that the defendant "did not deposit the rent in Court regularly though he was directed by the Court". Presumably at the time of argument the learned advocate for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that the amount for March, 1981 having been deposited on 16.4.81 of instead 15.4.81 that deposit was invalid and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to get a decree for eviction and the decree was passed accordingly. It is undisputed that all the deposits excepting the deposit for the month of March, 1981 were valid deposits. The defendant was denied the benefit of the provision of Section 17(4) of the Act only on the ground that the deposit for March, 1981 was held to be an invalid deposit.