DWIJESH CHANDRA MAITRA Vs. KSHITISH CHANDRA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order passed by a learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, in connection with an ejectment suit brought under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

(2.) The following are some of the admitted facts of the case. The suit for ejectment was filed on Aug. 1, 1956 and summons in the suit was served upon the Defendant Petitioner on Aug. 17, 1956. The Defendant appeared on Aug. 28, 1998 and applied for an adjournment for filing his written statement. Time was allowed till Novermber'14, 1956, for that purpose and the Defendant was also directed to deposit arrears of rent within one month from Aug. 17, 1956. No amount was deposited by the Defendant within that time. There was an allegation in the plaint that rent at Rs. 55 per month was in arrears for some months prior to the institution of this suit. The Defendant filed his written statement on Nov. 14, 1956, in which the amount chained by the landlords by way of arrears of rent was challenged. The learned Judge did not determine this dispute about the amount of arrears but he thought that as the tenant Defendant had not deposited his arrears of rent within one month of the date of service of summons and had not pleaded within that time that there was a dispute about the amount of arrears, he had forfeited his right of defence against delivery of possession as laid down in Sub-section (3) of Sec. 17 of the "West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. I may mention here that on the very day the Defendant had filed his written statement, namely, on Nov. 14, 1956. The landlords filed an application under Sec. 17 of the above Act for striking out the defence of the tenant against delivery of possession, although the section does not specifically require that such an application should be made by the landlord. However, on the basis of that application the defence of the Defendant against delivery of possession was struck out by the trial Judge on Dec. 15, 1956 and an order was passed for ex parte hearing of the suit. The Defendant has moved this Court in revision challenging legality and propriety of the above order.

(3.) After hearing Mr. Bagchi on behalf of the tenant Petitioner and Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the landlords opposite parties and on a consideration of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Sec. 17 of the West 'Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, I am of opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is erroneous in law and, as such, it cannot be supported. Sub-sections (1),(2),(3) of the above Act which are relevant for our purpose run in the flowing terms: